War unleashed...

[Kairus]

"How many times must a cannonball fly
before they are forever banned

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind,
the answer is blowing in the wind"

That's it, it has begun. That hairless chimp did it again. What's next? Armageddon? Didn't they say that just two billion dollars per year would be enough to solve the education problem in the whole planet so all the kids could get to school. Yes, that's very cool, it's a pity the US gets like fifteen billion dollars a month just to develop new weapons... Where the hell is this world going to???

[Quickstrike]

I hope Bush will read this:

http://theamericanprowler.org/article.asp?art_id=2002_10_23_21_53_40

[evenwolf]

I'm not saying it's all hopeless now- but as long as we're doing this war thing, I figure it's better to offer my own support to the... ugh.. cause.
I refuse to join the armed forces, but honestly- what use could my defiance of this decision help now? Now that the U.S. has decided to sin the universe- there's not much convincing for me to do.  The dirty deed is done, and in the history books my ancestors will see my support for Bush whether or not I actually contribute.

[Trapezoid]

Feh. You guys act like this is this is armageddon. Come on, if this is the end of the world, what the hell was WW2? That wasn't even the end of Germany.

[DGMacphee]

The Eastern world, it is explodin',
Violence flarin', bullets loadin'.
You're old enough to kill, but not for votin',
You don't believe in war -- but what's that gun you're totin'?
An' even the Jordan river has bodies floatin'.
But you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say,
An' can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?
If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away,
There'll be no one to save, will the world in a grave.
Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy.
An' you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin',
I'm sittin' here just contemplatin'.
I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation,
Handful of senators don't pass legislation,
An' marches alone can't bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin',
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'.
An' you tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China,
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama.
Ah, you may leave here for four days in space,
But when you return it's the same ol' place,
The poundin' of the drums, the pride an' disgrace.
You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace.
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace,
An' tell me, over and over and over again, my friend,
You don't believe we're on the eve of destruction,
No, no, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.

- Eve of Destruction by P.F. Sloane

[Quickstrike]

Man!  I love that song!  

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/20/opinion/20HERB.html?ex=1048741200&en=be3ec393f12b1ffd&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[jannar85]

Geez... I will never support any war, at any cause.
War isn't exactly the right solution IMO.

[Soft, Gooey, Delicious.]

George Bush is a Stupidhead.

[Helm]

Trap, this war can easily turn to a new WW. And a new WW with nuclear bombs.


Now, thing about that for a while. Let it sink in.

[c.leksutin]

war does not decide who's right and who's wrong... only who's left.




C.

[DGMacphee]

I say we employ the Hawkeye Pierce method.

Invite both sides to a party at The Swamp.

Keep serving martini after martini.

Last man standing wins the war.

[Trapezoid]

Helm: How optimistic. If the whole world tells itself that this will be WW3, then perhaps we can convince Fate that it is. There are as many people who are overreacting as there are people who aren't taking the war seriously enough.
Personally, I'm just going to support the war until next election, when I'll root (or vote if I'm old enough) for the Democrats. I play the hand I'm dealt.

[Fuzzpilz]

There's a lot more that's problematic about this war than its potentially turning into something bigger.

[Raggit]

Whats the big deal??

It isn't like the U.S has never delt with war before.

However, I feel sorry for the civilians over in Baghdad (or however you spell it).

They're pretty scared I bet. Especially since Saddam Insane is using them as human shields for him and his soilders.

[DGMacphee]

Yes, the US has dealt with war before.

However, they haven't had a very good record of dealing with war.

And most of the problems of this current war were caused by the US in the first place.

But that's a whole new debate.

[Trapezoid]

I'm lucky enough to be in a situation where I don't have to feel particularly threatened by the war. BUT, I do realize that it must be downright terrifying for some people. The entire Iraqi army, for example.
I just wish Saddam would get a clue and surrender.

[|Alky|]

Yeah right.
 
 Ideally, 2 billion would bring world education up to standard. But right now, I'd say maybe a quarter of states would use this in the way Iraq has spent alot of the money it recieved so far : Teaching people who already have good education in engineering or design to build bombs, or those who have been to law school to praise the government and try to justify the killing performed by it.

 I doubt the kids in those countries will learn about anything except to fear the government, that should ideally be supporting  and speaking for them.

 America does spend alot of money on defence, but look at all the things that were discovered because of peacetime military research : Helicopters, Safe Nuclear Reactors, Modern Commercial Airplanes and the entire Space program to name a few important ones.

 This spending is only something like 3% of its GDP anyway. Axis Countries like North Korea spend up to 40% of tax money on sustaining an army to be used only for scaring its neighbours, whereas the UK and Britain commit to NATO, and make it possible for many allies to sustain hardly any military whatsoever.

 And finally, as Trapezoid said, all this talk of 'armageddon' is obviously crazy. There's a much greater risk to everyone if nations don't cooperate with each other, in the way Iraq refuses to do. I doubt all but the few politicians who have been bribed by power in Hussein's government will be happy to see him go. Naturally the Iraqi people fear the invasion, but this is like a kid fearing an injection.  The needle point is unpleasant, but ultimatley it's not better to let the kid fall ill, is it?

Can you honestly say that the education, or that the entire quality of life was better while the Taliban was in control? Do you honestly believe that there's no good to be gained from this war?
 
 Sure, there will be Iraqi casualties, but that 15 billion dollars mentioned has mostly gone to making weapons more accurate, not deadly. And there may be some casualties for the brave American and British soldiers, but they're taking that risk - as far as I know they're not forced to. Policemen get injured apprahending criminals. But that's no excuse to let the criminals walk free.

[Dave Gilbert]

There's a much greater risk to everyone if nations don't cooperate with each other, in the way Iraq refuses to do.

You mean the way the US is "cooperating" with everyone right now?

I suppose this war was inevitable.  I don't like it, but I can't pretend like I have all the facts.  However, there's no denying that Bush has turned this into a PR nightmare.  The majority of the world hates the US right now.  If Bush used a little bit more diplomacy and tact, we might have had a bit more support.

[Trapezoid]

I don't think the majority of the world hates the US. They just don't want to be involved in the war. Don't confuse (or respond to) pacifism with hatred.

[Scarpia]

I don't hate the U.S. I don't hate americans. Nor do I hate Iraq or Iraqis. But I do believe Saddam Hussein is a vicious S.O.B. who doesn't hesitate for a second to kill anyone who has a mind of their own. And I have seen enough historical evidence to support that he has done so. In that respect, I think killing off the maniac is the right thing to do. But making the first strike against a nation and calling it "preemptive war" is hypocrisy. And doing so even when the Security Council has forbidden it, is illegal. The coalition is not right to do so, even if the goals are reasonable.

Engaging in such a war is not a good idea, especially when the opposition can rightfully claim that

a) Saddam Hussein could have been removed LONG ago, but Great Britain, the US and others chose to keep him there for political reasons, well aware of the kind of dictator he is

b) One of the reasons why the attack came today (as opposed to giving Saddam more time), is that the troops couldn't wait any longer without reinforcements - I don't think that kind of logistical reasoning should ever determine when to go to war, and when to use diplomatic means

c) The Middle Eastern oil, unfortunately, looks like it has been one of the main reasons of the attack. Not that it makes Saddam less of a murderous tyrant, but the question "why now" is a damn good one. And September 11th isn't it, because if this was a war against terrorism, we would be attacking Pakistan (if we're after the training camps and 'harboring terrorists'), or Saudi Arabia (if we're after those harboring AND funding terrorism). And when Bush tries to answer the "why now" by referring to the weapons of mass destruction, that raises the question of "then why the HELL not bomb South Korea who have nuclear weapons and ALSO refuse to disarm!?". I'm not saying the war is wrong, I'm just saying that, to a lot of people, this war smells like oil.



Scarpia

[Vel]

These mist coloured mountains
are a home now for me
but my home is the lowlands
and always will be
someday you'll return to
your valleys and your farms
and you'll no longer burn to be brothers in arms
                                              Dire straits, "Brothers in arms", 1985

[Goldmund]

Too bad that there are no Shai-Huluds to devour Emperor Pretzel.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

So Damn Insane is the sworn  enemy of Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden is based in Saudi Arabia and has strong ties with their goverment, through the goverment denies it. USA is using Saudi Arabia as a base for it's troops and pays Saudi Arabia a hefty sum for it. Some of this money is sure to wind up with Osama Bin Laden. Oh, the irony!

[Darth Mandarb]

You're absolutely right.

BEGIN SARCASM

We (America) should have just continued to ignore Iraq.  We should have just let them continue to flaunt their 'power' and throw their defiance in our faces with no reprecussions.  If you think for one second that we didn't want to go after Hussein in '91 (by taking the war into an invasion of Iraq) you're wrong.  But once again, politics, and negative world opinion stopped us from doing what should have been done.  And because of that negative world opinion that mad man was able to stay in power and continue to rape and murder his own people to garnish more and more power.

I mean, they (Iraq) only agreed at the end of Gulf War I to disarm, and after 12 years of increasing their weapon supplies what else could we do but ignore this and let them have their way.  I mean, think about it.  This way, by ignoring it, we could just sit on our hands and wait for another Sept. 11 to occure.  You're right ... that's just what we should have done.  Or better yet, we could have just let him develop nuclear weapons so that once we learned about it, and then had to invade to save the world, he could then use the nukes on our troops and kill FAR more people.

END SARCASM

Perhaps some of you know about this fellow from the 1930's and 40's by the name of Hitler?  Look what happened when the world ignored him and his rise of power and the Nazi party.  Well, if you all can't see that Saddam Hussein is another Hitler and another example of history repeating itself you've got blinders on.  If we continued to hide behind diplomacy and do nothing, and not act, we were just setting ourselves up for far worse than this invasion of Iraq.  

I understand non-American sentiments, because you're not involved, but this is one American who is damn proud to be one, and damn sick of people having opposition to something that has become necessary.  And as much as I hate to say this, if we did continue to do nothing, and let Hussein stay in power any longer you would all have become involved eventually.  

For the record, I hate war, I hate that it has come to it.  But the bottom line is that diplomacy failed.  The U.N. failed.  The United States of America, along with our brothers from Great Britain, were the only ones with the wisdom to realize what was happening (going to happen) and the only ones with the courage and resolve to stand up and do what needed to be done.

I respect all your opinions, and I live by the constitution which supports freedom of speech, so you can all say what you want.  I just wanted to get my opinion in here.

I say good luck and God speed to our fighting men and women overseas!

God bless the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

dm

[Fuzzpilz]

I don't know how strongly other people would agree to the following, but I hope I'm speaking for others as well as myself.

Sorry, Darth, but while I might respect/like you as a person if I knew you (as is in fact the case with some people who are in favour of this war, to make it clear that these aren't just empty words), I am unable to respect your opinion in this - it's based on lies (to you, not of your own), misinterpretation of history, and possibly lack of education. Want a point-by-point rebuttal?

[Darth Mandarb]

Not really Fuzzpilz, I don't want to get into an argument about this.  I don't have anything against any of you (mostly 'cause I don't know you).  I respect your view (though I don't agree with it) and won't argue with you about it.  I think it's safe to say that you're not going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you, so we can just leave it at that  Cool?  I really don't want to start an ideological debate!

(just to let you know, I am a historian, and very well educated)

dm

[Dmitri]

haha, my sister was shown on national tv protesting because she was right behind the guy being interviewed about the war.

War... what is it good for (apart from the economy due to increased government spending)

In the end, anyone who really thought they had an opinion about this and that it mattered was obviously wrong... the governments do whatever they want with big issues and we don't have any say (god bless democracy)

I liked Mr. Hussein's rebuttal speech to the war "The insane Bush will not succeed"

I'm nigh high sick of discussions about this flipping war though...

They say an Iraqi civilian died during the opening stages of the war. Then I thought, what about non-civilians? Weren't their lives just as important as civilians? Or don't they matter because they're holding a gun...

Gold: If only this was the land of sand...

[Kairus]

Do you really think Bush does this because he's absolutely brilliant and clever and has seen in a vision what the future will be if he didn't start this war? Give me a break, everything the US and the UK think when they go to this war ir three letters: OIL
Then they'll defeat Saddam and put in his place another puppet like they've done in other countries. Or you think Bush said to the people in Iraq "just don't blow up your oil resources" because he is thinking about the ambiental consequences it would have? It's just plain greed. Economical interests behind huge companies that (what a coincidence!) contributed in great amounts of money to Bush political campaign. Now he's paying back, that's it, and as he is not smart enough to think, he is not smart enough to say "go fuck yourself" to his contributors when they come with ideas like bombing Iraq to get its oil.
I'm not saying Saddam is not a dictator and he does not deserve to be removed from his position, maybe he is, but it's up to his people to rebel against the regime. They can't? They are being threatenned to death? What the hell! That has never stopped people from starting rebellions.
If they don't do, fear, whatever it's causing it, they would be just as the rest of the world. Don't think you're free because you have freedom of expression, don't think you're free because you can vote for the next asshole that's on the throne, don't think you're free because you can pick between twenty different types of toothpaste when you go to the supermarket. Because that, my friends, is what we call freedom.
Haven't americans started thinking why the rest of the world hates them yet? Not the people, but the ones who own the power. People is just blind about it, they can't understand it, but it's quite clear: they have been messing up with other countries for too long, they have been gaining too many enemies this last years, and they have told their people that life is like that, all the others outside their regime are wrong and only they have all the answers. This system is worse than a dictatorship, where you know who's the tyrant and who to spit to: this is brainwashing.

[Trapezoid]

OPINIONS sound very surreal when they're stated like fact, don't they folks?

[Kairus]

Hehe, I think the anarchist possessed me for a while.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
On the other side: I'm fed up about war.

[Darth Mandarb]

Who cares WHY the US and the UK are doing this.  I don't.  I just care that it's getting done.  It needed to be done, and regardless of why, it's going to be done.

If all the US and the UK are thinking about is oil, I say good for them!  Both our countries rely on Oil reserves from the Middle East.   We have a right to defend our interests.  But, of course, Saddam would never keep the oil from us ... nah .. he's a nice guy.

[Dmitri]

the reason the Iraqui's aren't rebelling is the same reason Americans aren't rebelling.

I mean look at America, the public opinion of Bush seems to be in the toilet with Hussein, it's just that they're allowed to say it. With so many people who are supposedly adamantly against the war, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a bloody uprising...

[DGMacphee from work]

If all the US and the UK are thinking about is oil, I say good for them!  Both our countries rely on Oil reserves from the Middle East.  We have a right to defend our interests.  But, of course, Saddam would never keep the oil from us ... nah .. he's a nice guy.

Even though the US plan to bomb areas of Iraq with a high civillian population?

I'm not for Saddam.

I'm not for Bush and Blair.

My biggest worry is how many innocent people will die at the hands of all all these "leaders".

[Quickstrike]

One lesser known reason for war:  Saddam pays $25,000 to the suicide bomber's families.  


Another topic:  America thinks too much of itself, but we're going to get Saddam, if we haven't, yet.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Anyone notice that it seems 99% of the people FOR war are americans? Where are people from around the world who totally agree with what the US is doing?  

[Trapezoid]

They're all in various foreign governments

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

I don't think that it is suitable to paint all americans the same colour and put them under one hammer. Yes, the majority is BLOODY FUCKING BRAINWASHED, but some are not. The media makes most americans believe that there are 51 states - 50 are USA and the 51'st is the rest of the world. If you tell people the same thing over and over for years they are sure to believe it, even if they themsleves think otherwise. Don't blame americans. It's not their fault. It's Bush's.

[evenwolf]

"Perhaps some of you know about this fellow from the 1930's and 40's by the name of Hitler?  Look what happened when the world ignored him and his rise of power and the Nazi party. "

Actually, I'm pretty sure Hitler's intentions were just to "liberate Europe."

Saddam = Bad
Bush Opposes Saddam therefore:
Bush = Good ?
No, no, no- that's silly.  One man may be evil but that does not make all of his enemies righteous. Bush may use counterarguments against discourse such as "Iraqi people, we bomb you because we love you" but somehow that just doesn't seem sincere enough for me.


Pro War argument #1:

We are liberating Iraqis from an evil power. They will be happy once he's gone and they will have democracy.  Assuming the majority of Iraqis wish for democracy- that sounds fine and dandy.   However, in order to give them this democracy- we are blowing up those people's lives: including the streets they go to work on everyday, their childhood memories, their relatives in the military, their national pride and security, their comfort (fucking BOMBS people, imagine!)  Has anyone bothered to ask one Iraqi citizen which lifestyle he prefers?  Whether he would rather have the choice of thirty named brand shoes, or to keep the life of his brother?  No one can argue we are improving the Iraqi lifestyle, that's non plausible.  

"but. .but ...but Saddam gassed his own people!!!!"
Ha, and the hundreds of death penalty victims Bush murdered weren't US citizens? Hypocrite.

[Dmitri]

site not found dude

[Dave Gilbert]

Gosh, being  in New York City at this time is the most surreal thing I've ever lived through.  I see bombing and war footage on the news and then the commentators go on to say how NYC is at a "high risk" for another terrorist attack.  They've said that before, and nothing has happened, but jeeze louise, it just permeates your brain after awhile.  The WTC attack is still fresh on our minds.  Everyone's on edge.  There is beefed up security everywhere - cops patrolling the harbors and populated districts.  NYC is probably the most secure place in the country right now, which should probably make me feel better but it doesn't.  

I work in Times Square, which is a popular place for rallies.  I left the office late last night  It was raining - a thick, heavy rain that covered my glasses and made it nearly impossible to see where I was going.  There was a large crowd on Broadway, and I could hear a loud muffled woman's voice shouting through a megaphone.  There were police cars redirecting traffic.  It was so surreal - the rain, the indecipherable voice screaming at the top of her lungs,  the bright neon lights of Times Square mixed with the flashing strobe lights of the police cars... just weird.

Nothing really to add to this debate, just thought i'd share my feelings.  I've just been feeling odd lately.

[DGMacphee]

Even: Don't forget the numerous deaths of people by guns in the US -- I'd say Bush is responsible for that, due to his lack of action upon any gun related issue.

I may constantly bag out our Prime Minister, John Howard, but at least I give him credit for banning guns when a major shooting happens.

The Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 for example -- he banned all semi-automatic weapons.

Or the Monash university shooting a few months ago -- he proposed legislation to ban all handgns not registered to the Commonwealth and Olympic Games (I'm not too sure if this proposal has gone ahead though -- does anyone know the current status of it?)

Regardless, Bush has done nothing to regulate guns in his own country, despite Columbine or the Washington Sniper.

And he has the nerve to talk about weapons of mass destruction when his own people are killing each other.

He's a hypocrite.

[Butcher]

I went to the protest in Athens today, and I must say I've never seen so many people unite before! I was moved, especially by the young people who showed up there to protest against the agression of the rich and powerful to the rest of the world...

 I bet you don't get to see all that in CNN

[Andail]

This whole deal pisses me off...I'd better not write anything

[evenwolf]

http://www.confessionalism.com/

This guy has some pictures posted of a protest that occurred yesterday, shutting down the main road on the University of Texas' campus.  They (we) blocked an intersection for about four hours with the support of the police- and then marched on to the capital building, and a much larger rally took place there.

I met the photographer after the rally at a photography club, and was pleasantly surprised when he displayed his pictures from the day:

[Matt Brown]

does that sign say solicalist worker? they have socialist clubs at UT?

[evenwolf]

Haha, there are actually. One of the head organizers of this event I believe is the president of that club.  But just to clarify- I posted that picture because I'm in it.  I was really sort of depressed at first to be there. Here was this huge group of people yelling "Quit ignoring me!"  and meanwhile bombs are splashing everywhere in Iraq.  But soon, I looked around and realized the sense of community that was forming between all these people and I started to enjoy myself.   However, I mostly just observed and listened to the opinions expressed.

[|Alky|]

Yeah, I did that too, even though I'm pro-war. It's nice to see that people aren't afraid to voice their opinions..
It's kind of annoying that there are people with 'second hand opinions', though. I couldn't resist saying 'no shit' to a person holding up a 'killing people is not nice' sign.

[Las Naranjas]

The Socialist Worker even get's it material republished in papers like www.green-left.org (which is a bit wet but hey).

What really got me in the rallies, is the fact they were completely braod based, and the sheer number of old and other sterotypical conservative voters.
The opposition isn't based on old class and party lines, which is good.

[Spyros]

I went to the protest in Athens today, and I must say I've never seen so many people unite before! I was moved, especially by the young people who showed up there to protest against the agression of the rich and powerful to the rest of the world...

 I bet you don't get to see all that in CNN

And don't forget the young girls...

[Darth Mandarb]

If all the US and the UK are thinking about is oil, I say good for them!  Both our countries rely on Oil reserves from the Middle East.  We have a right to defend our interests.  But, of course, Saddam would never keep the oil from us ... nah .. he's a nice guy.

Even though the US plan to bomb areas of Iraq with a high civillian population?

I'm not for Saddam.

I'm not for Bush and Blair.

My biggest worry is how many innocent people will die at the hands of all all these "leaders".

Saddam uses innocent civilians as human shields, this isn't President Bush's fault, nor Tony Blair's.  Perhaps if the rest of the world wasn't so 'uneducated' about the facts, this wouldn't be an issue.  Yes, innocent people will be killed ... it's called war.  But this is happening because Saddam Hussein defied international sanctions.  He didn't do what he agreed to do.  Saddam forced the action that is being taken, not Bush.  This is Hussein's fault.  If you want to point a finger go ahead, just point it at the person responsible.  And as much as the rest of the world loves the 'I hate America' band wagon, this is Hussein's fault, NOT Americas.  Do any of you HONESTLY think, that if America were attacked, Bush would use the innocents civilians of America as human shields?  Would he gas/kill/rape/murder American civilians?

This whole thread has made me sick.  I can't believe that the rest of the world can be so f***ing blind that you can't see the most obvious facts.  I'll tell you what.  I'll talk to Blair and Bush and get them to pull out and leave Saddam in power.  But here's the catch, when Saddam creates his first nuke, and we HAVE to go in to stop him, all you panzy ass quakers have to go in first and be 'nucleur' cannon fodder.

dm

[Darth Mandarb]

Regardless, Bush has done nothing to regulate guns in his own country, despite Columbine or the Washington Sniper.

And he has the nerve to talk about weapons of mass destruction when his own people are killing each other.

He's a hypocrite.

Yeah, you're right.  He is a hypocrite.  He should definately take away our constitutional right to bear arms.  Yeah, you know what you're talking about.  Bush HAS put restrictions on the type of guns that are legal, he has done great work in clearing illegal fire arms from the streets.

And also, there is a HUGE difference between me owning a hand gun, and a psychotic dictator owning nuclear weapons.  How you, or anybody for that matter, could even compare that is rediculous and sickening.

I just love that the rest of the world is just jumping on the "Anti-American" band wagon.  It's pathetic.

Anyway, before you call the most powerful man in the free world a hypocrite, perhaps you should first know what you're talking about.

dm

[evenwolf]

"Saddam uses innocent civilians as human shields."

I'm terribly sorry, but I think your entire post is completely uncredible until you clarify this point and add some supporting facts.  This assumption is the pivotal point of your post and as no one is arguing Saddam's lack of morals etc, this accusation is more than just a character trait.  

However, like I've said- this is not as black and white as some people try to make it.  Saddam is bad, sure- he could be taken out of power.  BUT, not just any excuse can be used as a catalyst for this action- because many people in the world would see it as unjustified- including the U.N., countries   such as France, Russia etc..

SO the fact that Bush used 9/11 as the catalyst, in combination with these rumors about Saddam is what gets me.  Don't you see he's exploiting the victims of the world trade center tragedy?   If it just took a couple planes and a building to make Bush justified for blowing up any country in the world- you would think he would start fabricating instances himself- not to raise question or anything.... after all, I can understand how Bush had to finish reading his children's book that morning.  I mean, it IS a good book.

[Darth Mandarb]

"Saddam uses innocent civilians as human shields."

I'm terribly sorry, but I think your entire post is completely uncredible until you clarify this point and add some supporting facts.  This assumption is the pivotal point of your post and as no one is arguing Saddam's lack of morals etc, this accusation is more than just a character trait.  

However, like I've said- this is not as black and white as some people try to make it.  Saddam is bad, sure- he could be taken out of power.  BUT, not just any excuse can be used as a catalyst for this action- because many people in the world would see it as unjustified- including the U.N., countries   such as France, Russia etc..

SO the fact that Bush used 9/11 as the catalyst, in combination with these rumors about Saddam is what gets me.  Don't you see he's exploiting the victims of the world trade center tragedy?   If it just took a couple planes and a building to make Bush justified for blowing up any country in the world- you would think he would start fabricating instances himself- not to raise question or anything.... after all, I can understand how Bush had to finish reading his children's book that morning.  I mean, it IS a good book.

Haven't any of you noticed that ALL the Anti-aircraft weapons in downtown Baghdad are on top of buildings that aren't military targets?  Haven't you seen all of his propaganda photos of innocent people that were killed when our bombs drop?  These people were put in the basements of military targets.  A place where civilians have no right (or desire) to be.  Or he moves his military segments into civilian complexes.  How can you people not see this?

Bush isn't exploiting the victims of Sept. 11.  He's honoring them.  He might be using the event to get the world support he needs to take action against Iraq, but for you to say that he is 'exploiting' them is ignorant beyond imagination.  He's doing something that needs to be done.  And, sadly, it took the events of Sept. 11 to open the eyes of the rest of the world, to realize what needed to be done.  It's really too bad that you all just can't see this and need to make unfounded insults and accusations ... pathetic.

dm

[evenwolf]

Where would I see these images, perhaps on privately owned networks owned by Rupert Murdock or Ted Turner?  So what you're saying and I'm translating is that we are killing innocent bystanders, and our media/government is spinning these tragedies to say these casualties were seeking shelter in places where they shouldn't be... but OH well, we'll continue bombing anyways.  

For just one time, would I like to turn on the news and hear Dan Rather or someone say "Oh shit,  we just  %&#@ed up."

And you know, that never happens really- we must be doing an extraordinary job to never make mistakes- there always seems to be some pretty little justification.

[Matt Brown]

sigh, ive been thinking about this, and the more I do, the less black and white it seems to me about wether we need to go in.
It isn't completly just that I hate war. sometimes war is needed. we needed to kick hitlers ass. This was not a pre-emtive strike. In fact, the only time I can remember the US having a premitive strike was the spanish-american war. what a great page in our histroy books that was.

anyways, what really bugs me is the authority. See, saddam is a bad guy. he hurts his own. Yeah, lots of countrys do that. yeah, he might have chemical weapons. so does lybia. So does north korea. So? NK says they do, and plans tests. THEY are the dagerous ones.

[Darth Mandarb]

You've convinced me ... you're right.  You should believe Hussein's propagandists over CNN.  What was I thinking?

You're giving a lunatic madman more credit than George Bush.  I think that's just sad.  Sad.

Those Iraqi solidiers who look so happy to be finally liberated.  And are shaking the hands (and hugging) American soldiers.  Wow ... Rupert Murdock and Ted Turner found some good actors.

Pathetic.

dm

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

LOL! You think the US media is completely truthful and accurate? OMG, I so did not know that! You learn something new every day.  :

Of course, its on tv so it MUST be true. They wouldn't lie, would they...Ever think they only show you the bits they want you to see?

Oh and another thing, dont make anti-war = pro-saddam. It is NOT the same thing.

[Kairus]

You're giving a lunatic madman more credit than George Bush.  I think that's just sad.  Sad.

- Saddam is a lunatic madman.
- Bush is a chimp with a gun.
What a couple of world leaders we have to choose from!!!

[BOYD1981]

there was a phone-in on a radio station yesterday and some bloke phoned in that was at some protest here in england and he said "blair and bush aren't listening to the people, 2 million of us have protested against this war etc etc words to that effect..." what he failed to realise is that those 2 million people aren't the entire population of the uk, the government are obviously listening to the 40 odd million other people here that are either for the war or aren't really that bothered, besides, why should they listen to us whether we're for or against war?
it's not our decision to make, plus if there was never the need for military action, i'm not pro-war, i'm anti-saddam, anti-murder and anti-justsitthereanddonothing...
speak to some Iraqi refugees that have fled their country because of the actions of saddam, ask them what it's really like over there, saddam controls people through fear and murder, bush and blair govern their people, they may do it badly and make stupid decisions but that's better than just killing people...
but all that aside, have you noticed how that woman in the blue shirt in that protest photo seems to not know how banners work by holding it upside down and down by the floor so nobody can see it?

[Fuzzpilz]

Here's an interesting blog. Read.

[DGMacphee]

Saddam uses innocent civilians as human shields, this isn't President Bush's fault, nor Tony Blair's.  Perhaps if the rest of the world wasn't so 'uneducated' about the facts, this wouldn't be an issue.  Yes, innocent people will be killed ... it's called war.  But this is happening because Saddam Hussein defied international sanctions.  He didn't do what he agreed to do.  Saddam forced the action that is being taken, not Bush.  This is Hussein's fault.  If you want to point a finger go ahead, just point it at the person responsible.  And as much as the rest of the world loves the 'I hate America' band wagon, this is Hussein's fault, NOT Americas.  Do any of you HONESTLY think, that if America were attacked, Bush would use the innocents civilians of America as human shields?  Would he gas/kill/rape/murder American civilians?

Firstly, Saddam wouldn't be using human shields if Bush hadn't invaded.

Secondly, the US and UK coalition also use voluntary human shields too.

How do you know that Saddam's human shields aren't voluntary?

Do you believe all the spin you read in newspapers?

Just because you read a report in the paper or watch a report on TV, and you hear the word "innocent", it doesn't always mean it's 100% true.

When you look at it, the US and Uk are using "innocent" people as human shields too.

The difference is that the media used the word "voluntary' when describing the US and UK human shields.

This whole thread has made me sick.  I can't believe that the rest of the world can be so f***ing blind that you can't see the most obvious facts.  I'll tell you what.  I'll talk to Blair and Bush and get them to pull out and leave Saddam in power.  But here's the catch, when Saddam creates his first nuke, and we HAVE to go in to stop him, all you panzy ass quakers have to go in first and be 'nucleur' cannon fodder.

Facts?

You mean the spin that Bush & Co keep pushing out of the White House?

And the sad truth is despite the number of nukes that Saddam makes, the US has weapons capabilities that are far greater than Iraq.

Not only that, but the reason why Iraq has any "weapons of mass destruction" is because the US sold them to Iraq in the first place.

Also, don't  degrade any regilious movement please -- I doubt any actual quaker would like you calling them "pansy-assed".

Yeah, you're right.  He is a hypocrite.  He should definately take away our constitutional right to bear arms.  Yeah, you know what you're talking about.  Bush HAS put restrictions on the type of guns that are legal, he has done great work in clearing illegal fire arms from the streets.

That constitutional right is a very archaic clause.

I'm sure the founding fathers did not take into consideration the technological development of guns in the next few centuries.

And if Bush has done great work in clearing illegal fire arms, how come there are over 100 times more fire arm homicides in the US than in any other country (and this isn't counting accidental deaths and suicides) -- and that also includes the wars over the last decade too!

In fact, more people were murdered by handguns in 2001 than there were people killed at the WTC, Sept 11 2001.

And also, there is a HUGE difference between me owning a hand gun, and a psychotic dictator owning nuclear weapons.  How you, or anybody for that matter, could even compare that is rediculous and sickening.

But the US constitution says you have the right to bear arms.

That would mean the average US citizen can own weapons grade plutonium to safeguard themselves (if they can afford it).

In other words, you've just proven my previous point, which is the constitutional clause about bearing arms is archaic.

I just love that the rest of the world is just jumping on the "Anti-American" band wagon.  It's pathetic.

You love it, yet you think it's pathetic.

You could cut the sarcasim and write legible points of view -- people would take you more seriously that way.

Anyway, before you call the most powerful man in the free world a hypocrite, perhaps you should first know what you're talking about.

Firstly: Free world *snigger*

Secondly, I've demonstrated my point of view with serious comments.

You've just been using sarcastic jibes.

And you think YOU know what you're talking about?



I've stated my point of view, which is this:

I'm not for Saddam.

I'm not for Bush and Blair.

If you think Georgie W is the greatest guy in the world, then that's fine -- I don't really care.

But don't you ever criticise anyone's opinions with sarcasim -- it's the lowest form of wit!

Why don't you try basing your views with some real facts and not your sarcasim OR spin-doctoring from the White House.

People would take you more seriously.

[Trapezoid]

Man, this war has screwed internet discussions. Non-bias is an endangered species one way or the other.
When one person attacks another person's viewpoints, his defense usually includes exagerating his own viewpoints. If you read something like Fark.com you can see how ridiculous this can get.
Note that this isn't directed at anybody or any side of the argument in particular.

[Even]

Man, I'm starting to think "pathetic" is your friggin' name, please use a variety of insults if you plan to degrade my credibility.

As a woman just siad very intelligently on Bill Mahers new show:

"You can support the troops, they are ordered there and have no choice.. but you have to realize that our nation has just set a new standard of starting a war with simply the possibility of something bad happening."

See, these are my thoughts- it DOES matter how we start this war- I'm not arguing the cause isn't justifed- but listen, if we as a nation say "It's ok to bomb another country (so long as you consider the leader evil) with just the chance they will do harm.  That's a pretty bad standard... seriously, think about it- one day a country will start a war on us, and what leg will we stand on to say "this is wrong" when we ourselves made it 'OK'.  This stuff doesn't just fade away. This embarrassment will live on, and our generation may be proud for taking care of this problem, however we should feel ashamed for conducting in this way.  

[TheYak]

Don't confuse (or respond to) pacifism with hatred.

Trap, I respect you, really I do.  You do, however, need a little bit of experience in these matters before forming concrete experiences.  This isn't addressed only to you but to those that may have a few misconceptions.  I'm only responding to part of your post. Pacifism in its purest form should not be confused with hatred.  However, quite a few of the anti-war protestors have turned to violent means.  Living near San Francisco, my friends and family have been harmed by these "hatred-free" individuals.  My dad's car was beaten soundly with a crowbar while he was in it.  My uncle David was hit with a nightstick.  Not because he was part of the protestation but because he was just trying to get through the crowd.  Fanatacism in any form can be universally destructive. Let's not limit this to the warmongers.  I myself, in case you didn't already know, am against the war and am all for impeaching Bush at the earliest opportunity.  I'm rambling now, but it's sickening to see peace preached with threat of violence and to see those protesting in the name of peace actually tout another agenda (gay rights, violence in movies, unfair working conditions) - using the war to further their own causes.  

I may be wrong in this but it seems to me that most of the country's all for this stupidity and most of the rest of the world thinks we're friggin' idiots.  I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but who is to say that what we're being told is correct?  I've no doubt that Saddam is a horrible and cruel man but what the hell do we *know*?  All we have are opinions (ours or the media's) based upon the few facts given us.   I, for one, knew from the get-go that whether or not Saddam was stashing munitions, we would start a war.  I don't think Saddam should remain in power but I think we're going about this the wrong way.   I've heard arguments for the war but I don't think I've heard one that didn't sound like it was based in ignorance, misconception or outright fanaticism.

[Darth Mandarb]

You're assuming I'm wrong because you have your opinions which you think are right.  So I must be wrong?  My sarcasm, and how it's responded to, only proves my point.

The very fact that nobody can see it, just makes it even more clear to me.

So why does your opinion (which you obviously feel strongly about) automatically superscede my opinion?  Because I use sarcasm?

I don't believe all the spin I see in newspapers and on TV.  But I certainly give it FAR more attention than I give Saddam's propagandists.  I find it repulsive that any of you can honestly debate this.

As far as 'Who cares if Saddam has nukes?' ... how in God's green Earth can you even type that, much of a less actually think and believe that?  You don't care that a psychotic has a nuke?  Are you nuts?

The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents ever written that has stood the test of time.  Sure parts are archaic.  But you're not going to sit there and try to tell me bad things about America that you have NO way of proving are more accurate than what I'm saying.  That's hypocritical.

The constitutional right to bear arms is very restricted in America.  So no, the average American couldn't, even if he/she could afford it, legally own weapons grade plutonium.  I think that was a silly statement.  My other point that there is a huge difference between me owning a hand gun and Saddam owning nukes stands.

Why were there more firearm murders in the US?  Where did you get that fact?  From a newspaper or TV?  Do you believe everything you hear in the newspaper or on TV?  Contradiction alert.

Critcising someones opinions with sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?  You can insult me if you want.  You don't know me, but that's okay man.  I really don't have anything against you.  I'm just, quite frankly, sick of this anti-American sentiment that's so popular right now.  You know what, if you people have a problem with how my country runs its government that's fine.  But you shouldn't assume that all Americans aren't worthy of respect simply because you think George Bush is 'goon' (or whatever you called him, I don't have the quote here)

This has turned into a slug fest.  Which wasn't my intention.  I really don't have problems with you (or anybody on these boards).  I just wanted to get my point across.  If you think I'm wrong because I watch CNN and read the Washington Post, I have to question where you get your 'facts' from.  What makes your opinion correct, and mine so obviously faulty?

I mean this is rediculous ... we're all being hypocritcal here.  This whole post was anti-war and yet here we are engaging in 'internet war'.  I want to state now, I am not pro-war.  I hate war.  But my country men are there, and there's nothing I can do about it.  So I back them 100% and support them all the way.

'War is just an extension of polictics by other means'

I know there is a LOT more involved in this war.  But the bottom line to me is they're getting rid of Saddam Hussein.  And that makes it worth it to me.  It's just that simple for me.

It truely does bother me that the rest of the world has such a problem with America.  Truely.

EDIT - I didn't mean to insult your religion man.  Had I known you were actually a Quaker, I would have used the word pacifist instead!  I apologize, it was a bad choice of words, and I must confess, my blood was up. END EDIT

[TheYak]

I cannot deny that you seem well-grounded in your beliefs  (I realize that your post was in refutation to a previous argument but am jumping in nonetheless).  I can't help but admire your patriotism and faith in your country and way of life.  However, I don't see how you can so blatantly flaunt the constitution of the US as being so revered when it's the very document called into question concerning the issues at hand.  Any laws written to govern our country, any contract signed and any deal agreed to is only valid if it is adhered to.  

What Bush is doing (and has been since he greedily lapped up the opportunity given him by Sept. 11) is utilizing the situation to his advantage in order to bypass the constitution.  He has taken the agreements and the statutes that the US and several other nations have worked so hard to build and tossed them out the window.    He is basically telling everybody that they should support him.  When the others don't see his opinions as valid, he mutters,  "Aw, what the hell does the rest of the world know?" and does what he wishes anyway.  It is under his misguided leadership that the US is acting and it is that leadership that will create means that cannot be justified by the ends.  

Please don't take this in the wrong spirit.  I was against the beginning of this conflict but now that it has begun I can only hope that it will be swift and with as little loss of life as possible.  I have nothing against the soldiers of the US and our allies (it would be difficult seeing as how I'm on Active Reserve status) and I wish them the best of luck.  I only wish that they didn't have to give their lives in sacrifice to such causes as Bush deems worthy.  

Oh, and to Texans reading this ... you have my sympathy for the embarassment of having produced one such as our president.

[Darth Mandarb]

YakSpit - I guess I just don't see it that way.  I respect your opinion totally.  Can I ask you this?  Do you not think Saddam should be removed?  I don't mean to enflame this post.  I'm just curious.  Because I very adamantly believe that he needs to be gotten rid of.

Anyway, I love your avatar, man!  That's pretty cool.  Did you make it yourself?  I made mine (big Star Wars fan).  I am making an AGS game for Star Wars actually (check the Games in Production if you're interested - Called Rebel Spy)  Sorry for pimpin' myself

Peace.

[Even]

Hehehe, Texans...

Homeland Security, blah blah blah.  "American people, I hope you can see the need to blindly rob you of your rights as a citizen."  It's crazy man, of course there justifications - "But such and such happened! We need to make sure it doesn't again!"

Here's the thing tho- those things we are slowly sacrificing- they are what make us americans, no?  I mean, sure, you can take certain liberties little by little- but how long before americans lose all that make them American?  What does this country have over others? Someone make a list, and let's start crossing off the items we will lose in the upcoming years.

As far as handgun deaths- whereas most European countries have 100 deaths at max and Canada has sixty deaths a year- the United States has over 11,000.  That is a statistic- not a news story, sure a liberal did the research but who else would?  I personally believe the right in bearing arms. I don't ever intend to own one myself but I do feel it is important individuals aren't solely dependent on the police and that power should not be held solely by the government.  I am, however, against WHATEVER is driving so many Americans to shoot eachother- and I honestly feel it is the media which spreads fear and panic- telling you to lock your doors, fear Killer Bees, and telling you your neighbors are serial killers.  Sensationalism. "If it bleeds, it leads"

Saying so does not make me anti-capitalist or unamerican.  I believe in freedom of the press. It's the press who does not believe in freedom of the press- there are hundreds of stories that COULD be reported each year that never make it to our ears- because it was censored by private interests. What exists now is $=voice... which does not allow all to speak.  People should, and DID have the chance to- own the air waves.  But people never knew their digital  air waves were simply given away to private corporations, whereas the american public could have gained billions of dollars selling them.  THAT is not freedom of the press, the people who would have had to pay for those airwaves did not want the public to know and therefore suppressed those stoires, and they won.
Tell me your thoughts.

[TheYak]

I personally feel that Saddam is not the most wonderful of leaders and should definately be removed.  He has shown from his track-record and his reaction to our attack recently that he will always resort to cowardly inhumane tactics.  Am I too much raised on militarily-minded movies and spy-flicks?   Don't the US and UK have some of the best special-ops personnel in the world?  Why can't we just assassinate him and his cabinet?  Why must it involve a war sacrificing our youth and civilians in Iraq (and possibly the US, who can say?).  

To play the devil's advocate...  do we know for a fact that Saddam *is* evil?  Much can be said of Bush that is not too pleasant.   Take this example:  Either the man has such hatred for the Arabian people or he is such an ignorant bastard that the first day of the attack took place on the day of the Persian New Year.  What the hell?  America would probably demand we turn the sands of the middle-east into a sheet of glass if we were attacked on our new year.   Iranians are more concerned with this holiday than Iraq, of course, but we have been told time and time again by the people and leaders of the middle east that an assault upon one of the Arab nations is an assault upon them all.  Iran has no cause to love Iraq and even less to care for Saddam.  However, because of the nature of our strike and its timing we've earned their intense hatred as well.  I can't understand why Bush would choose that day of all days....      

By the way, thank you for your response.  I have an all-new respect for you and those that share your perspective thanks to the mature and rational way you responded to my last post.  I'm also glad that opposing viewpoints can still find points in our debate in which to laugh at ourselves and one another.  

Ah, and the avatar was no stretch of genius...  I just used a webcam very close to my face and cropped the pic down.. then compressed it until it was 64k.  It is rather different though, eh?

[Andail]

I think it's a bit funny...

All those who so desperately want a war now...Bush, Blair and all their minions...and those within these boards who support the war...have they been going around the past twenty years, constantly thinking: "Damn, we Must get ríd of Saddam! Gosh, I wish we could do something about Saddam! I can't sleep at night, thinking of Saddam"?
Because when somebody now questions the war, they start shouting "What! Do you like Saddam? Do you think he shouldn't be gotten rid of?! Don't you think we should do something about it!!"

And I get a bit surprised...hey, dude, what have you been doing the past twenty years about this menace? Why were your feelings so stirred up at this very moment?

If Saddam has all these nuklear missiles or whatnot, that apparently have the range of half our globe, why hasn't he been using them  already?

Do we need a full-scale war whose aftermath we can hardly speculate in, to get rid of one family?
Why not use all those billions or trillions of dollars to support the already existing opposition?

Do we actually believe that removing Saddam will stop the world-wide terrorism? Is Iraq some sort of terrorist-hatchery, that just need to be closed down to prevent all acts of hatred in all future times? Can we actually scare terrorists, when they are willing to sacrify their own lives to achieve their goals?
Will a terrorist cell in USA think "Wow, look what they did over there in Iraq...they killed Saddam Hussein...well, let's cancel the terror-act we had planned for tomorrow....I feel so discouraged about sacrifying my life, all of a sudden"

Do you think USA is safer now? Safer from what?
A menace that actually never expressed any pre-emptive hostility towards USA whatsoever?

All the UN-staff, the volontary humanity workers, the ones involved in the oil-for-food operation, will they think "Well, years of efforts are now spoiled and we must go home, since Bush couldn't think ahead, and wanted an immediate result, but hey, what a great alternative solution he presented! A war, why didn't we think of that? Why have we been doing our darnest to preserve peace, to raise the living conditions of Iraq so that the people could finally get the education and wealth they need to get the opposition working, and get rid of Saddam by themselves, when all it took was to invade the whole freaking country and just bomb everything away?"

[DGMacphee]

You're assuming I'm wrong because you have your opinions which you think are right.  So I must be wrong?  My sarcasm, and how it's responded to, only proves my point.

Not really.

So why does your opinion (which you obviously feel strongly about) automatically superscede my opinion?  Because I use sarcasm?

I haven't degraded your opinion through the use of bad wit -- the fact that you use sarcasm to debate me only makes my points of view stronger.

I don't believe all the spin I see in newspapers and on TV.  But I certainly give it FAR more attention than I give Saddam's propagandists.  I find it repulsive that any of you can honestly debate this.

I don't debate it at all -- you're entitled to read and believe whatever you like.

However, I prefer to ignore the spin from both sides.

As far as 'Who cares if Saddam has nukes?' ... how in God's green Earth can you even type that, much of a less actually think and believe that?  You don't care that a psychotic has a nuke?  Are you nuts?

No one said 'Who cares if Saddam has nukes?'

I don't know where you got that idea from.

The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents ever written that has stood the test of time.  Sure parts are archaic.  But you're not going to sit there and try to tell me bad things about America that you have NO way of proving are more accurate than what I'm saying.  That's hypocritical.

Well, actually I just did.

You haven't given any evidence that contradicts.

In fact, you've agreed with me by saying "Sure parts are archaic".

And you contradict yourself saying that, because a few sentences before you say that it has "stood the test of time".

The constitutional right to bear arms is very restricted in America.  So no, the average American couldn't, even if he/she could afford it, legally own weapons grade plutonium.  

Why is it silly?

According to the constitution, it's true.

And no, the constitutional right to bear arms isn't restricted.

See Bowling For Columbine and you will see how unrestrictive it is -- For exmaple, Some banks give guns out when you open an account.

I think that was a silly statement.  My other point that there is a huge difference between me owning a hand gun and Saddam owning nukes stands.
Why were there more firearm murders in the US?  Where did you get that fact?  From a newspaper or TV?  Do you believe everything you hear in the newspaper or on TV?  Contradiction alert.

It's a statistical fact from the bureau.

Over 11,000 people are killed in firearm homicides.

Critcising someones opinions with sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?  You can insult me if you want.  You don't know me, but that's okay man.  I really don't have anything against you.  I'm just, quite frankly, sick of this anti-American sentiment that's so popular right now.  You know what, if you people have a problem with how my country runs its government that's fine.  But you shouldn't assume that all Americans aren't worthy of respect simply because you think George Bush is 'goon' (or whatever you called him, I don't have the quote here)

No one has insulted you or taken any potshots at the American people.

And no one said Americans aren't worthy of respect.

I don't know where you got this idea from either.

I merely stated my opinion beforehand and you let loose with a lot of sarcastic nonsense.

Why don't you stop getting so emotional, relax, and write legible points of view without jumping to false assumptions such as "everyone thinks Americans are bad for invading Iraq".

I am open to any points of view against my comments.

But only when they make sense.

Your sarcastic rantings haven't made any sense.

Please, don't get over-excited about this issue -- this is an adventure game forum, not a soapbox opera.

If you stated your opinions in a simple, dignified, and civil manner, I'd be more open to them.

This has turned into a slug fest.  Which wasn't my intention.  I really don't have problems with you (or anybody on these boards).  I just wanted to get my point across.  

See above comments

If you think I'm wrong because I watch CNN and read the Washington Post, I have to question where you get your 'facts' from.  What makes your opinion correct, and mine so obviously faulty?

Does it really matter that deeply to you if my opinions are "correct"?

Do you really think I have the ability to change your point of view?

Because I don't think so -- I don't feel the need to change your point of view, thus have no need to tell you where I base my opinions upon.

So, what difference does it make how I base my opinions?

I believe in my own opinions for my own reasons.

And if you replied in a civil manner I would have thought the same about you.

If you asked me in a civil tone where I based my opinion, I could give you a list.

But obviously, you only want to here my sources so you can discredit them.

So why should I bother?

I'll say this -- I try to read a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever.

Plus, after studying media for several years at two universities, I have a keen ability for detecting bullshit in newspapers, especially with my current journalism degree.

Not only that, but I listen to a wide variety of viewpoints, especially from the people of this forum and other forums -- I force myself to listen to them, despite my personal politics, and comprehend their point of view.

Except when they use a lot of nonsensical sarcasim, such as you have.

And that's who I am -- and I am perfectly comfortable with my knowledge, so much that I don't feel the urge to imediately argue with someone just because their point of view clashes with mine.

I feel no urge to do so -- instead I listen carefully to their civil, well-thought-out, point of view -- and if there's anything that needs clarifying, I'll ask them.

However, as I said before, never critise my post, or anyone's post, using sarcastic rantings.

There is a saying that goes "A man who knows nothing, speaks. A man who knows everthing, doesn't."

That is why I try to keep my points of view as brief as possible.

I mean this is rediculous ... we're all being hypocritcal here.  This whole post was anti-war and yet here we are engaging in 'internet war'.  I want to state now, I am not pro-war.  I hate war.  But my country men are there, and there's nothing I can do about it.  So I back them 100% and support them all the way.

Which is good.

I know there is a LOT more involved in this war.  But the bottom line to me is they're getting rid of Saddam Hussein.  And that makes it worth it to me.  It's just that simple for me.

It's not that simple, all things considered.

It truely does bother me that the rest of the world has such a problem with America.  Truely.

It has more to do with hating Bush and Blair.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Americans.

Some of the best AGS gamemakers are from the US.

EDIT - I didn't mean to insult your religion man.  Had I known you were actually a Quaker, I would have used the word pacifist instead!  I apologize, it was a bad choice of words, and I must confess, my blood was up. END EDIT

I'm not a quaker.

And it's probably a good thing I'm not, or else I'd be deeply offended.

Maybe you should relax more so your blood isn't up.

After all, this is only a forum for adventure games.

[evenwolf]

I think a better quote goes along the lines of:

"Put yourself in the company of those who seek the truth- and avoid those individuals who believe they have already found it."

because while speaking simply and calmly may be a necessary condition for someone to be considered wise- it is not sufficient condition in the sense that all mutes are geniuses.

Sometimes it can be hard expressing your views when seemingly you are misinterpreted time and time again - but honestly, since your own interpretation was formed by your very life and the circumstances throughout your daily routine, such misunderstandings are at times understandable.

[Adamski]

As much as i've tried to stay out of this post, I feel I have to ask a question. I asked this same question in irc and didn't get a proper answer, so maybe someone here can enlighten me. Why has the prime minister of our country (being the UK) risked his job, his cabinet members, diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, and general political disaster to go above the UN's head and go to war with Iraq, knowing full well all the consiquences good and bad of such a major decision? I mean, there's clearly a uterior motive to Blair's actions for going to such gigantic lengths and risks, and it has to be something much more than just looking 'cool' for Bush by supporting his warmongering ways... this is international politics not schoolyard antics.
So, perhaps i'm missing something obvious here, but if someone could point it out then i'd be more the wiser for it....

[|Alky|]

Yeah, some kid on the AOL messageboards said something along the lines of "we're safe, why do we need to attack anyone". In a kinda evil way, I proceeded to notify her of how easy it is to get anthrax or other weapons across the borders of Europe to the UK here. After all, thousands of Iraqi refugees travel here each year (from Saddam's tyranny, I might add) and if one of them happened to be an Iraqi agent, with a radioactive dirty bomb, VX capsule or even a simple concealed ak47 he could very easily travel to a busy area of London, and kill hundreds of times the amount of civilians the Coalition would kill in even a long war (and it dosen't seem like this one's gonna be one of those...). Someone else said something about how they lived in the remote countryside, so I told them about the various biological weapons available to rogue nations on the open market. Russia has had 50% of it's stocks of smallpox stolen, and there are other diseases that make that horrible disease seem petty in comparison....

[Matt Brown]

As much as i've tried to stay out of this post, I feel I have to ask a question. I asked this same question in irc and didn't get a proper answer, so maybe someone here can enlighten me. Why has the prime minister of our country (being the UK) risked his job, his cabinet members, diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, and general political disaster to go above the UN's head and go to war with Iraq, knowing full well all the consiquences good and bad of such a major decision? I mean, there's clearly a uterior motive to Blair's actions for going to such gigantic lengths and risks, and it has to be something much more than just looking 'cool' for Bush by supporting his warmongering ways... this is international politics not schoolyard antics.
So, perhaps i'm missing something obvious here, but if someone could point it out then i'd be more the wiser for it....

I think it's because blair really thinks its the right thing to do..not b/c of the oil gains, or other stuff, but because he thinks its right for his country. He might be wrong, but he's wrong for the right reasons. I like him more then I like bush

[Andail]

As much as i've tried to stay out of this post, I feel I have to ask a question. I asked this same question in irc and didn't get a proper answer, so maybe someone here can enlighten me. Why has the prime minister of our country (being the UK) risked his job, his cabinet members, diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, and general political disaster to go above the UN's head and go to war with Iraq, knowing full well all the consiquences good and bad of such a major decision? I mean, there's clearly a uterior motive to Blair's actions for going to such gigantic lengths and risks, and it has to be something much more than just looking 'cool' for Bush by supporting his warmongering ways... this is international politics not schoolyard antics.
So, perhaps i'm missing something obvious here, but if someone could point it out then i'd be more the wiser for it....

But DS, we can't suppose that as soon as a leader does something that is so provoking that his own ministers leave the party, and people all over the country go raging mad, he's doing a good thing, just because it would be so strange otherwise....

Blair is putting everything on one card. He trusts that the war will be quick and painless, and that it will be soon forgotten. If so, he will still be an accepted leader and have an extremely good relationship with the US.

I know it's harder to hate Blair than Bush, being a true politician and one who fights with passion for his oppinions...looking at all his debates in the house of common is really fascinating, in contrast to how it works in USA...Bush is holding a speech, alone in his private room, his party and ministers automatically agree with everything he says, and there is no debate whatsoever.
I wonder when people in US will start to ponder over why they never see Bush in a political debate with someone.

[Darth Mandarb]

You're assuming I'm wrong because you have your opinions which you think are right.  So I must be wrong?  My sarcasm, and how it's responded to, only proves my point.

Not really.

Very openminded.

So why does your opinion (which you obviously feel strongly about) automatically superscede my opinion?  Because I use sarcasm?

I haven't degraded your opinion through the use of bad wit -- the fact that you use sarcasm to debate me only makes my points of view stronger.

So you can't listen to my opinions because I use sarcasm?  Again, very openminded.

The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents ever written that has stood the test of time.  Sure parts are archaic.  But you're not going to sit there and try to tell me bad things about America that you have NO way of proving are more accurate than what I'm saying.  That's hypocritical.

Well, actually I just did.
You haven't given any evidence that contradicts.
In fact, you've agreed with me by saying "Sure parts are archaic".
And you contradict yourself saying that, because a few sentences before you say that it has "stood the test of time".

I agree that parts are archaic.  But the fact that almost the entire thing HAS stood the test of time, and still stands up over 200 years after being written, PROVES my point.  You're not an American, and no matter how much education you have, and how much you think you know, you don't live in America.  You don't live by/under the constitution.  So you can't say it doesn't work by what you've read.  Even coming from 'a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever'.

The constitutional right to bear arms is very restricted in America.  So no, the average American couldn't, even if he/she could afford it, legally own weapons grade plutonium.  

Why is it silly?

According to the constitution, it's true.

And no, the constitutional right to bear arms isn't restricted.

See Bowling For Columbine and you will see how unrestrictive it is -- For exmaple, Some banks give guns out when you open an account.

You're wrong.  Again, you don't live under the constitution.  The right to bear arms IS restricted.  Actually it's VERY restricted.  It's not possible for me to go into a store and buy a machine gun.  Check your 'a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever.' again.

I think that was a silly statement.  My other point that there is a huge difference between me owning a hand gun and Saddam owning nukes stands.
Why were there more firearm murders in the US?  Where did you get that fact?  From a newspaper or TV?  Do you believe everything you hear in the newspaper or on TV?  Contradiction alert.

It's a statistical fact from the bureau.

Over 11,000 people are killed in firearm homicides.

And I'm sure the bureau is FAR more reliable than the US gvt. or CNN, or the Washington Post.  Oops, was that too sarcastic to be taken seriously?

Critcising someones opinions with sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?  You can insult me if you want.  You don't know me, but that's okay man.  I really don't have anything against you.  I'm just, quite frankly, sick of this anti-American sentiment that's so popular right now.  You know what, if you people have a problem with how my country runs its government that's fine.  But you shouldn't assume that all Americans aren't worthy of respect simply because you think George Bush is 'goon' (or whatever you called him, I don't have the quote here)

No one has insulted you or taken any potshots at the American people.

And no one said Americans aren't worthy of respect.

I don't know where you got this idea from either.

I merely stated my opinion beforehand and you let loose with a lot of sarcastic nonsense.

Why don't you stop getting so emotional, relax, and write legible points of view without jumping to false assumptions such as "everyone thinks Americans are bad for invading Iraq".

I am open to any points of view against my comments.

But only when they make sense.

Your sarcastic rantings haven't made any sense.

Please, don't get over-excited about this issue -- this is an adventure game forum, not a soapbox opera.

If you stated your opinions in a simple, dignified, and civil manner, I'd be more open to them.

I have stated my opinions clearly.  And you call them 'sarcastic nonsense' and 'sarcastic rantings'.  ALL my points make sense to anybody with an open mind.  You can claim to be as educated and know-it-all as you want.  Apparently all your experience didn't open your mind at all if a little sarcasm makes you immediately discredit somebody elses opinions.  I'm not getting any more 'over excited' than anybody else, but I'm certainly not going to allow you to make yourself feel better by trying to degrade me with close minded comebacks attacking my p.o.v.

If you think I'm wrong because I watch CNN and read the Washington Post, I have to question where you get your 'facts' from.  What makes your opinion correct, and mine so obviously faulty?

Does it really matter that deeply to you if my opinions are "correct"?

It doesn't really matter to me.  I'm trying to point out the hypocricy here.  You say the 'facts' that I am basing my opinions on are 'faulty' because of where I obtain my information.  Yet I don't get the impression that you're over in the middle east dealing directly with the Iraq situation.  So where do you get your information from that makes it more truthful than mine?

But obviously, you only want to here my sources so you can discredit them.

Like you immediately discredit mine?

And that's who I am -- and I am perfectly comfortable with my knowledge, so much that I don't feel the urge to imediately argue with someone just because their point of view clashes with mine.
There is a saying that goes "A man who knows nothing, speaks. A man who knows everthing, doesn't."
That is why I try to keep my points of view as brief as possible.

Yet when my view clashes with yours, you reply to it point by point trying to discredit it.  "A man who knows nothing, speaks. A man who knows everthing, doesn't." ... so you're admitting that you know nothing?  Or are you honestly claiming that you're not saying anything here?  Like insulting the constitution, or discrediting my opinions, or insulting Bush, or comments about the media?

I know there is a LOT more involved in this war.  But the bottom line to me is they're getting rid of Saddam Hussein.  And that makes it worth it to me.  It's just that simple for me.

It's not that simple, all things considered.

I said it's that simple for me.

dm

[Darth Mandarb]

YakSpit - Thanks for the reply.  I totally respect your views, even though we're on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Why can't we just assassinate him and his cabinet?  Why must it involve a war sacrificing our youth and civilians in Iraq (and possibly the US, who can say?).

Unless we have declared an actual war on Iraq, Saddam (and his cabinet) would be considered political leaders.  And there is a law (not sure of the exact #) that specifically states that no body of the US gvt. will take part in political assassinations.  Plus, the vast majority of the world thinks of America as 'the big bully' anyway, so if we simply went in and whacked Saddam (which believe me I wouldn't mind!) we would never get out from under that rock!  I do hate the fact that our boys/girls are in harms way.  But they're soldiers, and that's their job.  But I still don't like it.  I totally admire and respect them though.

I've wondered if maybe a CIA operative could go over there and take out Saddam, and make it look like an accident.  But the problem then is that one of his sons would just take over.  And I don't think there could be a 'believable' way to take out enough people 'accidentally' to achieve the removal of his regime.  So a show of force becomes the only alternative.

As far as Bush attacking on a holiday.  Well if I had to play devil's advocate to that I would have to say this.  It seems to me that every time an action in the middle east becomes necessary there's always some holiday that gets in the way.  I am not fully informed on middle eastern holidays, but I think there might be one on every day of the year

I don't think Bush is a great man, I know he has his faults.  Perhaps it's blind Patriotism on my part, but I feel the desire to stand behind the man.  I can't help it

dm

[Andail]

Darth-Mandarb, I suggest you follow DG:s advice and watch Bowling for Columbine.
It's done by an american, who is worried about the situation in his native country. Not trying to fool you or give america a bad reputation, just trying to cure its problems.
11000 people ARE shot every year in USA.
Your weapon laws ARE ridiculous, and it's quite rational that without any guns, people wouldn't get shot. It's not very complicated

[Darth Mandarb]

Andail - I'm not arguing the statistic.  I've seen it too.  I'm not arguing that there is a gun problem in the U.S.  But there is strict legislation on what guns are legal to own.

But do any of you honestly believe that if the gun laws in America were changed that the gang bangers and mobsters would just suddenly have a change of heart and drop their guns?  It's just not going to happen.  I know (or have to believe) that American politicians, especially the President, want to solve the problem.  However, they are also aware that whatever legislation they pass, the problem isn't going to just go away.

So what's the solution?  I've always thought it should be, right away, a long term jailable offense to be illegally carrying a gun, but then we've already got severe over crowding in the jails, so then it's just another problem.  It's like the drug problem.  If people want drugs, they get them.  If people want guns, they're going to get them.  Especially after the fall of the soviet union.  There's so much surplus weaponry floating around on the black market it's scary.

The weapons laws aren't rediculous, the ability to get guns so easily is.  I don't consider these the same things.  It's illegal to obtain them, just easy to do so.

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to make a change, but it's a political fact that those politicians who don't show results, don't stay in office.  I wish it were different.

dm

[TheYak]

On that point I agree with you.  I disapprove of firearms (although I've fired around 15 different types) but outlawing weapons or making them harder to get will only cause impediment to honest citizens.  Those who use them for illegal purposes seldom acquire them legally.  The only real good it might do is to prevent accidental deaths (or deaths caused by ignorance of repercussions or ignorance of firearm safety). We could find a better solution in education and proper caution taken by owners.  Again, I have to say that I dislike firearms being in the hands of the populace (which are comprised mainly of idiots) but don't see a solution to the nation's problems in further restricting them.

[evenwolf]

Andail, you are right on that- but that is not the message Bowling For Columbine expresses. Of course if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths- just as if there were no cars, there would be no car accidents.  However, the thesis of Michael's movie isn't that Americans own the most guns aand therefore etc etc- but WHY they in particular are so gun crazy- so paranoid- than any other country.  I don't believe its the presence of guns or violent movies.  It's the feeling that you are never safe, there is really no sense of community anymore.  There are too many risks to be so trusting, lock your doors, keep you pets indoors, don't let your kids go trick or treating, don't walk alone at night. etc etc etc etc...  

[Las Naranjas]

Canada also has lots of guns, but few gun homicides.

It's soething deeply wrong with American society sadly, and something that Alan jones and the like would like to see replciated downunder.

[Trapezoid]

There aren't any gun nuts where I live.
It's regional. Some communities are just bad communities.

[Darth Mandarb]

Las Naranjas - I don't think it's something deeply wrong with American society.  But parts of American society.  The area I live in now is very peaceful and quite full of community spirit.  

All of America isn't one cess pool of evil people who are paranoid of one another, though there are some places here that are.  I should think most of the world is that way.

dm

[evenwolf]

Sure, you live in your bubble and you believe that there exist evil people and evil places out in the world. That's exactly what the hell I'm talking about!  It's purity- you think your little chunk of the world is pure and good, and therefore there must be some evil forces out there threatening it- black men in allies, serial killers, burglars, robbers, ghetto dwellers  etc.   Their exists this idea in people's minds that the world ends as soon as one dark figure approaches them in a parking garage- or when they hear a strange noise in the house at night. Then on the news the next day- some parking attendent or some young child has been shot and killed,  and the shooter is supremely confused, uttering "but I thought the worst things - I didn't mean.... It was only an accident!" And that's where all these handguns come into play, most which exist in suburban communities solely for protection or sport (later stolen and resold on the streets of course).

The idea that your community is immune supports what I am saying- no one with the choice lives in a place full of crime. The fact that we all live in the "last bastion of hope" in our towns gives us the motivation to defend our homes and communities. Everyone  believes  "well there are some shady places in this town- but I'll be damned if my neighborhood becomes one!"

I used to live in a beautiful community, very little crime- but my dad used to see unfamiliar cars creeping down the street at night and he'd hop into his car and chase them down with a spot light- not that he had any authority or any balls to do so. He was just scared, suspicious. And he never caught anyone or exposed any great conspiracy, he played vigilante for the nieghborhood "just in case."

But the question I have for my dad is "What exactly are you protecting? Are you protecting this lifestyle of paranoia where you are free to fear whatever you want?"


Why spend so much of your life in these "just in case" scenarios - when you can choose to live a more fulfilling life without the worry? Do humans honestly seek that kind of adversity?  Lord, please don't let me follow in dad's paranoid footsteps...

[TheYak]

Sure, you live in your bubble and you believe that there exist evil people and evil places out in the world.

this might be out of context but I'm gonna use something you said for my own purposes.  I think this view is totally right and this is the problem I have with most of the opinions I hear bounced around the net and from the ignorant.  There seems to be a popular opinion that there exists only good and evil, that anything not Democracy is the bane of goodness in the world.  That any leader not practicing democracy is the prince of darkness.  WTF?  

      Humanity realized long ago that it required government in order to allow large groups of people to co-exist and to solve disputes.  People tried many different methods.  They tried monarchies and democracies.  They've tried many forms of government.  Some work better than others and some are more fair than others.  Some allow for tyrants to rule unchecked ... others allow tyrants to start wars.  Americans, in particular, seem to regard Communism as an evil that needs to be weeded out. Despite what many may think, it was designed to create a utopian society wherein everybody, regardless of status, has an equal share.  Granted, it doesn't seem to work as planned, but then again, what government does?  Americans like to think that we're living in a democracy where everybody has a say in how this place is run.  It's just not the case.  We don't even practice democracy (although it has elements of it) ... we practice Federalism.  I know this has little or nothing to do with the discussion at hand but due to events of my crappy day I feel the need to rant about the self-righteous.

[Andail]

You're right, Evenwolf, and surely I also noticed that the main point of his movie was the fear for everything...
But I just wanted to pin-point some facts...the paranoia is after all just a hypothesis, albeit a highly plausible one.

Consider it...fear is actually the biggest reason for any kind of hatred or controversities...if people weren't so scared all the time, there wouldn't really be much problems

[evenwolf]

I think the day to day lives of individuals is somewhat a representation of what you're talking about exactly.  

black man in alley = communism  for instance

Through the news or gossip, we hear stories about terrible things that are happening, and because we ourselves are not witnessing them, we stereotype simply because it's the easiest thing to do.

The majority rules, and is never questioned.

If a Christian man kills a another man- to the Christian audience the fact that he is Christian is not relevent. However, if a Muslim man kills another man- surely it must be terrorism or some blood ritual (see Malamud's "The Fixer") at hand.

Communities, countries- same difference.  Bad things happen all throughout the world, but we exaggerate their frequency and causes.   "Oh my God, another Black man killed a white man! THEY are going to revolt!"

[Darth Mandarb]

Evenwolf

I'm responding to something you wrote about earlier in this post that I just missed in all my other posts ...

Actually, I'm pretty sure Hitler's intentions were just to "liberate Europe."

So do you think this made what he did better?  Or were you just trying to differentiate Hitler and Hussein?  Because the fact that Hitler's intentions might have been different (and his ideology) I hate to think you were defending him?

As for your comment about living in a bubble?  I don't live in a bubble, I'm aware that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods.  I used to live in what could only be called a questionable neighborhood.  It's not a black and white issue, it's just some areas are okay, and some aren't.  It's just a fact.  Don't you live in America?  You should know this.

Are you saying there aren't evil forces/people out there?  I can't really see how you can think that.  If there aren't ... why are there problems in the first place?  Because good people over react and kill other good people?  Is that why gang-bangers kill each other off in record numbers (before any of you jump down my back for that last statement - gangbangers can be black, white, asian, mexican, etc.)  Is that what you're saying?  Because that's ignorant.

Do you also think that the right to bear arms should be removed from the constitution?

[MrColossal]

what's with all this good and evil stuff?

good people, evil people, evil forces!?

if you tell me skeletor was evil i'd believe that, lex luthor, he was an evil genious

they are also fake, if you believe in evil and good then i think one has to define what is evil and what makes someone good

[Darth Mandarb]

Okay people ... this has gotten WAY off topic here.

War Unleashed ...

So you're all for the war right?



For those of you who are Anti-War (or even pro-war 'cause this is great!!!)
Anti-War Protester talks vs. Iraqi Immigrant

dm

[evenwolf]

"Actually, I'm pretty sure Hitler's intentions were just to 'liberate Europe.'"

One of Bush's many and ill-qualified excuses for this war is that he is liberating Iraq.  Hell, the name of the stupid war is Operation: Iraqi Freedom.  Despite Bush being "good or evil" is irrelevent as he doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people- no matter how many disclaimers he uses.  Hell, 1000 missiles- we've used more than 1,000 missiles since this war has begun several days ago and have killed countless civilian casualties. We still have not, and will not find those biological weapons.  But it doesn't matter, the american people will forget all about these little details soon. Bush will be regarded as a hero because he accomplished his warmongering goal- and God himself will fly down from the Heavens to pour the ceremonial Gatorade on him. (shout out to Dave Rees, my man)

I, in no way, sympathise with Hitler.  


And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles

Want my definition of Good/Evil?

Ok, take two clones and set them loose in two EXACT replicas of the same environment.   If one injures things or people- he may be considered more "evil" than the other."

So, in this scenario you see that a person's background is highly relevent. I cannot speak for gangsters- I imagine if I was raised in their same living conditons and with the same biases and limitations against me- I would resort to such behavior.  Yes, and so would you if you had little else choice and you would be just as justified in your own mind as you are now.  So don't bring up the topic of good and evil with me anymore, as the concept does not exist.

[TheYak]

Well, if we were to vote...  hmm..   :

I won't discredit your belief system as much of it is based upon upbringing, religion, location, etc.   But since I am still on Active-Reserve status and can be called back to fight for a cause I don't believe in, I find it absolutely surreal that this discussion is involving Good Vs. Evil.    I'll be certain to pound that thought into my head if I go to the middle east.  That man I just shot.. he was frickin' evil.  He had a bad soul.  He had to die.  He had to die by my hand.  Why?  Because I serve righteousness.   Sorry, it's all just too biblically Old Testament for my taste.

edit - since Even snuck his post in before I completed mine I'll note that this was directed toward Darth's last post.  

[Darth Mandarb]

Evenwolf

And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles

You just discredited everything you've ever said in these forums and will ever say here again.  How old are you?  I was asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer.  Thanks for proving my point.  (I know ... I know ... I use 'sarcasm' ... ooh the horror!)

Why are you so convinced that President Bush doesn't like or care for the Iraqi people?  Do you know him personally and he told you this?  Or are you just guessing 'cause you don't like him?  Even if he doesn't like them ... does this matter?  He's still going to be responsible for their liberation and they will love him for it.  (Now you can make your comments about that's what he wants)

Perhaps there's more fun stuff you can find at conspiracy.com ... I hear it's a great site!

We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof.

As some in here are bound to ask, YES I heard about the scuds on CNN.  But I guess all the live footage is being faked right?  You probably think the moon landing was a scam too.

dm

edit Yak - I truely hope you don't have to go over there.  I wouldn't wish that on anybody!  I feel really bad for those Iraqi troops who are surrendering in big numbers.  I don't know if I could bring myself to shoot somebody like that.  I hope you never have to make that choice man.end edit

[TheYak]

"We may never find biological weapons (most likely 'cause the Iraqis are probably, in a panic, over there right now destroying them!) but they've already fired scuds at our troops.  Which they weren't supposed to have.  Right there is proof."

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

As far as the whole weapons search thing goes.  They might find something, they might not.  However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.  I didn't even feel very strongly at the time about Bush or the issue at hand when I guessed at that one.  

You can defend your points of view.  You can defend our country and what it stands for.  Don't bother defending Mr. Bush.  Give him up as a lost cause.  Whether or not you agree with his actions at present is irrelevant.  The man's an idiot.  That's not name-calling, it's statistical-classification.  

[evenwolf]

"Why are you so convinced that President Bush doesn't like or care for the Iraqi people?  Do you know him personally and he told you this?  Or are you just guessing 'cause you don't like him?  Even if he doesn't like them ... does this matter?  He's still going to be responsible for their liberation and they will love him for it.  (Now you can make your comments about that's what he wants)"

Thank you for allowing me to post my own comments, I will.  This is incredible that in your mind- you also think that knowing a person face to face = reading that person's mind.  If that was the only way to judge character in this world, then I would easily throw it back to you- Have you met Saddam?   No, but you do have evidence of his actions, of his character- you have documents and celebrity TV anchormen telling you what to think. Simply because I perceive Bush differently than you do- I personally must know him first before making any judgements?  How did you bypass this vital step- or are you sitting next to him right now?  "Do you KNOW him?"; such argument is so basic.

We are NOT killing as few casualties as possible. Prove that point to me, and how a thousand missiles enters into the peaceful equation, and I may agree with you that Bush cares for the Iraqi people.

And it doesnt even matter if he does?

So, if and when your leader lies to you- you are convinced such an instance is isolated from all the other fancy things he claims but never adheres to?

Secondary gain is so beautiful in the land of responsibility.  If only I could tell myself I was a good person and then simply become one without doing things associated..

[TheYak]

Oh, no I change my mind!

Freakin' hypocrite.    

Edit: That quote was made before Mr. Collosal helped EvenWolf go back in time to edit his post and make it one of length.  

Now: Even... do you really attest to greater knowledge of the Being of Pure Righteous Light that is Bush just because you're from the same state?  You can only judge a person's character upon their actions.  Saddam has undisputedly horrific actions attributed to him while Bush has only Kindergarten antics and ignorance attributed to his.  Therefore Saddam does = Evil ... but G.W. = Militant Ignorant.

[Darth Mandarb]

Wolf - relax bro!  Take it easy.  We can't all be as smart as me!

They weren't supposed to?  When was this?  Before or after we threatened them with annihilation?  Was this before or after we deployed and began a bombing campaign?

After the Gulf War (1991 that is!) Iraq was, as the loser, given certain military restrictions.  One of these restrictions was that they couldn't have weapons of mass destruction.  These include (forgive my spelling) Scud missles, Al Sammoud 2 missles, and Al Abheer (sp??) missles.  Also, chemical and biological weapons of any kind.

First Saddam wouldn't even let the UN weapons inspectors in, then when they finally got in they found the Al Sammouds (and caught them trying to sneak them out the back).  Then Saddam forbid the inspectors from entering.  He was forced to let them back in (I think it was 1998) and then wouldn't let them privately interview anybody.  He gave them the run-around from the start and he's been doing this for years.  They even found proof of experiements with a nuclear reactor.

However, any rational individual knew, from the first time it was announced that weapons inspections would take place to determine if we would attack, that Bush would declare non-compliance and order an attack.

The weapons inspectors were ordered in years before (the current) Bush was elected into office.  And they were UN sanctioned (shocking).  So it's not like Bush Jr. came in and said "I'm going to invade Iraq"  Well ... I suppose he might have  But he didn't start the inspections.  He was just the one who said "It's been 12 years, we know he's got weapons he shouldn't have, this is rediculous!"

[Darth Mandarb]

Thank you for allowing me to post my own comments, I will.  This is incredible that in your mind- you also think that knowing a person face to face = reading that person's mind.  If that was the only way to judge character in this world, then I would easily throw it back to you- Have you met Saddam?   No, but you do have evidence of his actions, of his character- you have documents and celebrity TV anchormen telling you what to think. Simply because I perceive Bush differently than you do- I personally must know him first before making any judgements?  How did you bypass this vital step- or are you sitting next to him right now?  "Do you KNOW him?"; such argument is so basic.

What has Bush done that makes you think he doesn't care for the Iraqi people?  That is my question.  I don't think you have to know somebody face to face to know what they want or think and care about.  I'm just asking you to back up your statement that Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people.  I haven't met Saddam, but it's pretty much public knowledge that he's not a nice guy.  His actions in the last few decades have shown this over and over and over again.  What has Bush done that proves (to you at least) that he doesn't care about the Iraqi people?

We are NOT killing as few casualties as possible. Prove that point to me, and how a thousand missiles enters into the peaceful equation,

So do you think that the American military is aiming for innocent civilians?  You believe the propaganda that Saddam's lackies are using?  I can't necessarily 'prove' that we are trying to keep down the number of civilian deaths.  But I highly doubt you can prove to me that we aren't either.  This is a war.  In war, unfortunately, civilians are killed.  Saddam brought this on himself, so if you want to blame civilian deaths on somebody, blame him, not the American military.

And it doesnt even matter if he does?
So, if and when your leader lies to you- you are convinced such an instance is isolated from all the other fancy things he claims but never adheres to?

What has he said, and not adhered to?  Again, please prove your points so I can address them.

dm

[TheYak]

Basically, you are correct but Bush initiated the current drive to have the inspections complete.  You failed to refute my previous point about the firing of scud missiles.  I know they are in violation and there were obviously in existence.  However, they weren't used until the US attack was beginning.  

All I am saying is that Bush was pushing the completion of the inspections and regardless of the inspection's outcome, would've initiated an attack on Iraq.     How can we actually stand behind an individual that is unwilling to stand behind agreements that we've made as a country with other nations?  He's violating treaties formed under the United Nations.    

Basically, Bush is resorting to school-yard bully tactics.  He is unable to prove his point via intelligent argument or (*god forbid*) evidence so he automatically resorts to violence.  I did note that you didn't bother to defend his intelligence level.  His mental landscape is miserably bleak.  

Again..   (and I've mentioned something to this effect before) I don't believe in the motives behind the war.  I have zero faith in Mr. Bush and his policies.  I find it incomprehensible that he's waving aside all other opinions and arguments (including those of many of our allies) and just doing whatever the hell he wants.  *However*, I certainly hope that the war accomplishes whatever it's supposed to as quickly as possible so that my friends in the service can get the hell home as soon as possible and the Iraqi populace can breathe a little easier.

Also, you may rail against the pacifists and the protestors but have you stopped to think that some of their publicity and their actions might be enough to turn aside repercussion against our civilian population?  At least other nations will know that we're not an entire nation of warmongers and that some of us are not on a personal vendetta against the religion of Islam (I'm not saying Bush/US is..  it's just what the Arabs are saying in the press).

You do have one good point, Darth.  Bush/US is not specifically aimed for the populace despite what some may say or the middle-eastern press might say.  However, I don't say this because I believe Bush gives a crap about 'em or is a good person.  It's just a bad political move.

[Darth Mandarb]

Basically, you are correct but Bush initiated the current drive to have the inspections complete.  You failed to refute my previous point about the firing of scud missiles.  I know they are in violation and there were obviously in existence.  However, they weren't used until the US attack was beginning.

I agree with you on all points in this quote.  Bush did push.  And there's a part of me that says he only did it to finish what 'daddy' didn't.  The scuds were in violation, and he shouldn't have had them period.  Regardless that he only fired them after we invaded, why did he have them in the first place?  He wasn't supposed to, and for 12 years he was told (by the world) to disarm, and he didn't/wouldn't.

All I am saying is that Bush was pushing the completion of the inspections and regardless of the inspection's outcome, would've initiated an attack on Iraq.     How can we actually stand behind an individual that is unwilling to stand behind agreements that we've made as a country with other nations?  He's violating treaties formed under the United Nations.

I agree w/ this ... sort of.  I mean, I think he was pushing the completion for a few reasons.  I think he very likely wanted to take action on Iraq, and may have pushed inspections for that reason, but also (I like to think) that he also saw that Saddam was a potential threat.  I don't know if our country can take another 9/11.  ALL actions to prevent that should be taken in my opinion.  As far as violating treaties ... I hate that it had to happen, but don't you think the protection of America is important enough?  What treaties were violated?  I'm unfamiliar with them.

I did note that you didn't bother to defend his intelligence level.  His mental landscape is miserably bleak.

He does sometimes have an absolutely 'bewildered' look on his face

*However*, I certainly hope that the war accomplishes whatever it's supposed to as quickly as possible so that my friends in the service can get the hell home as soon as possible and the Iraqi populace can breathe a little easier.

Amen.

Also, you may rail against the pacifists and the protestors but have you stopped to think that some of their publicity and their actions might be enough to turn aside repercussion against our civilian population?  At least other nations will know that we're not an entire nation of warmongers and that some of us are not on a personal vendetta against the religion of Islam (I'm not saying Bush/US is..  it's just what the Arabs are saying in the press).

Actually no ... I never thought about it that way.  I wish that was their only motive though.  And of course, most terrorists are so fanatical, and their hatred so blinding, that the protesters probably wouldn't effect them.  But you never know!

dm

[DGMacphee]

Very openminded.

It's hard to be open minded when you make no sense.

So you can't listen to my opinions because I use sarcasm?  Again, very openminded.

See above comment -- your sarcastic rantings make no sense.

I agree that parts are archaic.  But the fact that almost the entire thing HAS stood the test of time, and still stands up over 200 years after being written, PROVES my point.  You're not an American, and no matter how much education you have, and how much you think you know, you don't live in America.  You don't live by/under the constitution.  So you can't say it doesn't work by what you've read.  Even coming from 'a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever'.

So because I'm not American, I am not allowed to form any opinion of the constitution.

That's ridiculous.

You're wrong.  Again, you don't live under the constitution.  The right to bear arms IS restricted.  Actually it's VERY restricted.  It's not possible for me to go into a store and buy a machine gun.  Check your 'a number of difference sources -- left, right, middle, whatever.' again.

I saw it happen in Bowling For Columbine.

I've also read several comparisons between Australian gun laws and US gun laws -- and from my point of view, being an Australian, US gun laws are not restrictive in comparison.

So, I'm not wrong.

And I'm sure the bureau is FAR more reliable than the US gvt. or CNN, or the Washington Post.  Oops, was that too sarcastic to be taken seriously?

Yes, that was.

Firstly, the bureau is part of the US Govt -- Even I know that and I'm Australian.

Secondly, CNN and Washington Post, like an media, use these statistics as part of their news stories.

Show me one news report that proves contrary to the statistic.

I have stated my opinions clearly.  And you call them 'sarcastic nonsense' and 'sarcastic rantings'.  ALL my points make sense to anybody with an open mind.  You can claim to be as educated and know-it-all as you want.  Apparently all your experience didn't open your mind at all if a little sarcasm makes you immediately discredit somebody elses opinions.  I'm not getting any more 'over excited' than anybody else, but I'm certainly not going to allow you to make yourself feel better by trying to degrade me with close minded comebacks attacking my p.o.v.

Firstly, you're not using a "little" sarcasm.

Secondly, you haven't backed your opinions with any facts or data.

Thirdly, you're very emotional, which is usually a sign that someone is writing without thinking first.

Fourthly, you've made derogitory comments towards a religious group -- that is very closed minded as far as I'm concerned.

And finally, my opinions only took four lines to state and yet you keep wishing to bombard me with sarcastic replies that make no sense whatsoever -- I consider that way more closed-minded than anything else.

A fool always persists in such folly.

It doesn't really matter to me.  I'm trying to point out the hypocricy here.  You say the 'facts' that I am basing my opinions on are 'faulty' because of where I obtain my information.  Yet I don't get the impression that you're over in the middle east dealing directly with the Iraq situation.  So where do you get your information from that makes it more truthful than mine?

I never said your 'facts' were 'faulty' -- you're making that up.

I'm saying that you've just launched into a sarcastic rant for the sake of arguing -- why don't you try to acknowledge my actual position first before accusing me of something I did not say.

Like you immediately discredit mine?

I haven't discredited yours.

To be honest, I don't care what your sources are (which if you read my last post properly you would have understood).

Yet when my view clashes with yours, you reply to it point by point trying to discredit it.  "A man who knows nothing, speaks. A man who knows everthing, doesn't." ... so you're admitting that you know nothing?  Or are you honestly claiming that you're not saying anything here?  Like insulting the constitution, or discrediting my opinions, or insulting Bush, or comments about the media?

It's not because your view clashes with me.

It's because you haven't put forth a logical arguement.

I haven't insulted the constitution -- I called it archaic, and you agreed.

I haven't discredited your sources -- I said you seem to instantly believe a lot of the spin from the White House (You could read other sources for all I know -- It doesn't matter).

I haven't insulted Bush in this thread -- I only said I'm not on his side (nor Saddam's) and said he should take more action on gun laws.

And if I've insulted the media, by calling it's spin, then you need to wake up -- most contempory media is spin.

As for me knowing nothing, who knows and who really cares?

Only I can judge that.

How do you judge yourself?

I said it's that simple for me.

Suit yourself.

Just be wary of the after-effects when Saddam is out.



Look, I don't see why I should have a discussion with you when you don't think before you write.

Try a little civil behaviour.

Anyway, post all the replies you want to me, because I'm ignoring them.

It's not worth my time because I have better things to worry about.

I don't really care whether you're right or I'm right or whoever is wrong.

I've stated my opinion and I stick by it.

No amount of argument from you is going to change that.

So blather away, kiddo -- I'm only listening to Pro-Bush people who can at least keep a civil tongue.



P.S. I noticed you're from Michigan.

See Bowling For Columbine.

The director, Michael Moore, is also from Michigan.

Flint Michigan, I believe.

Ironically, he's also a member of the NRA.

See the movie.

[Scarpia]

Just thought I'd contribute.... An interesting point that nobody is talking about, is that the strong peace movements in Europe throughout the Cold War, were supported and funded by the Soviet government! In secret, naturally, but the (often left-wing oriented) organisations actually received contributions directly from the USSR because if those countries were disarming, that would weaken them compared to the USSR. Devilishly clever..

MonsterSasha:
So Damn Insane is the sworn  enemy of Osama Bin Laden, Osama Bin Laden is based in Saudi Arabia and has strong ties with their goverment, through the goverment denies it. USA is using Saudi Arabia as a base for it's troops and pays Saudi Arabia a hefty sum for it. Some of this money is sure to wind up with Osama Bin Laden. Oh, the irony!

Felt like correcting this: Osama Bin Laden is originally from Saudi Arabia, but they Threw Him Out of there, deported him and told him never to return! He has hated the Saudis for it ever since. Trust me, Bin Laden does NOT have 'strong ties' with them, he hates them even more than he hates America - according to his religious belief, the people of Saudi Arabia are committing a religious crime (I think the word is Fatwa, but I'm not sure I remember correctly) by practicing Islam 'incorrectly' - to him, the 'correct' way of practicing Islam is to wage 'holy war' against the US and others.

DgmacPhee:
Not only that, but the reason why Iraq has any "weapons of mass destruction" is because the US sold them to Iraq in the first place.

Hmm. Actually, those weapons did not come from the US alone. Besides, they came from private (or semi-private) companies and manufacturers, many of which are located in France and Germany, ironically. These companies have made billions of dollars selling technologi and equipment to the Iraqis, sure. But Saddam could have made them himself, and he would have, if western governments in those years hadn't allowed him to buy them abroad.

YakSpit:
Don't the US and UK have some of the best special-ops personnel in the world?  Why can't we just assassinate him and his cabinet?  Why must it involve a war sacrificing our youth and civilians in Iraq (and possibly the US, who can say?).  

I saw a documentary about that. I believe the Israelis have been trying for about a decade, with no luck, and they have the most advanced and well-trained assassination 'special forces' in the world. Saddam is good at hiding, he uses those Saddam Lookalikes, and he is paranoid enough to occasionally kill off people who are close to him, such as family members, bodyguards etc. In short: they would if they could.

Darth-Mandarb:
The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest documents ever written that has stood the test of time.  Sure parts are archaic.  But you're not going to sit there and try to tell me bad things about America that you have NO way of proving are more accurate than what I'm saying

I disagree. The American Constitution is a good one, but seriously - it could be better. The 'gun policy' is one example. It is not only archaic, it is utter madness. You may rant and bitch and call it your 'constitutional right', but do you know what? 11.000 people would disagree a LOT with that, every year. And a lot more, if you count the americans who survive being shot at. I live in a country where that doesn't happen, because our constitution does not express such vigilante-ethics.

America is all about freedom. And freedom is good, I agree, but too much freedom is anarchy. And anarchy is bad. Why is anarchy bad? Because in a society of anarchists, people tend to go around killing each other, and people in general feel insecure on the streets, and paranoia thrives. I don't live in such a country. You do. How you manage to hail your constitution so vividly and patriotically, is beyond me.

Evenwolf:
I used to live in a beautiful community, very little crime- but my dad used to see unfamiliar cars creeping down the street at night and he'd hop into his car and chase them down with a spot light- not that he had any authority or any balls to do so. He was just scared, suspicious. And he never caught anyone or exposed any great conspiracy, he played vigilante for the nieghborhood "just in case."

That's such an important point, Evenwolf.. And extremely relevant. I think it is very parallel to the idea of 'preemptive attacks'. Let's kick the Iraqi's ass, just in case. WE don't really have evidence, but they ARE the bad guys, and we ARE the good guys, so we can bomb them anyways.

That mentality - if anything - defies the whole essence in your constitution. INNONCENT until proven guilty is a Core Pillar of democracy anywhere in the world. Bush (and whoever supports preemptive stikes) don't give a F.uck about democracy, or they are just hungry for a Strong Man, a Decisive Leader with Determination and Purpose, to lead them against the Evil Enemy Threat. That's - historically - Step One towards dictatorship and / or warfare.

Bush agitated for this war by asking if we really wanted to wait around for the 'Smoking Gun'. YES PLEASE! That's what we do in any democratic Justice System - we WAIT for people to commit crime BEFORE we throw them in prison / execute them / sentence them to whatever punishment. We LET PEOPLE WALK if they haven't done anything, EVEN if they are BAD people and everyone knows it.

Darth-Mandarb:

And you live in a bubble.  Mr Bubble Bugglage Bubbles - Evenwolf

You just discredited everything you've ever said in these forums and will ever say here again.  How old are you?  I was asking a serious question, looking for a serious answer.  Thanks for proving my point.  (I know ... I know ... I use 'sarcasm' ... ooh the horror!)

Wrong. He - at MOST - discredited that one post, but probably only that one point, since the rest of his arguments were clear and reasonable, which can't be said for more than a few (I think I counted three or four sane arguments in *all* your posts on this topic) of yours. Asking how old he is, that one made me laugh. Not because it is witty or smart, but because it is pathetic. Truthfully, I went to check your age in your profile after reading the first two or three posts you made, because I couldn't believe you could be more than 16 or 17, judging by your attitude and arguments. I usually never do that, and I haven't done so with EvenWolf, because it just never occurred to me to check if he was a kid. It did with you. If that's not enough of an argument to make you think twice about your sarcastic (childish sarcasm, I might add) and naive argumentation methods, I don't know what is. You come off as a teenager, and I'm not saying this to flame you, I'm telling you because you do and because it's sad.



Scarpia

[Darth Mandarb]

That's such an important point, Evenwolf.. And extremely relevant. I think it is very parallel to the idea of 'preemptive attacks'. Let's kick the Iraqi's ass, just in case. WE don't really have evidence, but they ARE the bad guys, and we ARE the good guys, so we can bomb them anyways.

We had/have evidence people.  For the love of God open your eyes (and your minds).

Wrong. He - at MOST - discredited that one post, but probably only that one point, since the rest of his arguments were clear and reasonable, which can't be said for more than a few (I think I counted three or four sane arguments in *all* your posts on this topic) of yours. Asking how old he is, that one made me laugh. Not because it is witty or smart, but because it is pathetic. Truthfully, I went to check your age in your profile after reading the first two or three posts you made, because I couldn't believe you could be more than 16 or 17, judging by your attitude and arguments. I usually never do that, and I haven't done so with EvenWolf, because it just never occurred to me to check if he was a kid. It did with you. If that's not enough of an argument to make you think twice about your sarcastic (childish sarcasm, I might add) and naive argumentation methods, I don't know what is. You come off as a teenager, and I'm not saying this to flame you, I'm telling you because you do and because it's sad.

Because I back up what I say and make strong points that makes me 16 or 17?  Just because you agree with this Evenwolf character who doesn't make sense?  Just because you agree with him doesn't make me wrong.  So who is being close minded now?  Unlike DGMcphee who won't open his mind because I use sarcasm, you won't open yours because you don't agree with me.  Perhaps I should check your age.

And finally, my opinions only took four lines to state and yet you keep wishing to bombard me with sarcastic replies that make no sense whatsoever -- I consider that way more closed-minded than anything else.
A fool always persists in such folly.

I agree ... so why do you keep persisting?  My replies (yes, yes, using the dreadful sarcasm) may take a few more lines, but at least they prove my point.  Rather than being close minded and short.

So blather away, kiddo -- I'm only listening to Pro-Bush people who can at least keep a civil tongue.

Yeah, that was civil.  Freakin' hypocrit.

DGMacPhee
When you open your mind a little, I'll continue to debate with you.  If you can't take a little sarcasm, you shouldn't post your opinions.  You can't take sarcasm and  I don't like close mindedness.  The difference is that I am able to deal with your close mindedness.  Obviously you can't deal with sarcasm.

dm

[Dmitri]

Darth: not that I'm in this discussion at all. But be mindful that these are other people you are talking to, not everybody responds to sarcasm the same way. My wacky sense of humour's gotten me into trouble more times than I'd like to count

everyone else: I couldn't be screwed reading through this. So I'll put my two cents in, my opinion is that Saddam Hussein, and any other people who is being oppressed by an evil sort of person, should be 'liberated'

Now I know around here this is gonna cause a lot of agro, so I'll define my term for 'liberated'

'Liberated' means that when and if the people want to overthrow their regime, it is overthrown by whatever means, if his means war, well, god save the soldiers. I know war is a horrible thing and I'm not saying I support an upcoming war, war is a last ditch resort when all else has failed. After the regime is gone, then the people should decide what they want to happen, unfortunately, this might lead to another regime...   But it should be restated that it was the PEOPLE who wanted to overthrow the regime, not some foreign government. Unless of course that country is threatened by the said regime.

[evenwolf]

See, the phrase "wants to be liberated" raises conflict.

Does one Iraqi person wish to be liberated? Yes, of course. Do twenty Iraqis - do thousands?  How many people must have this desire to justify brutally attacking their country, and is that the method those people prefer?  And how does it not matter if this cause is sincere or just a disguise for a larger agenda, and that agenda is hinted at by the lack of organization at giving cause for atacking Iraq- first being that the country harbors terrorists, second that they have naughty weapons, and third that the people- suddenly after all these years are asking for our help?

And what if it happens the majority of the people back Saddam?  Do we still liberate the minority who want to be liberated and say "fuck you, evil doer" to everyone esle?  If so, then please liberate me and the hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting against Bush's actions. Someone liberate this regime which has used smokescreen after smokescreen to gain the public's opinion and blind such individuals such as this "Darth character" whose sarcasm can easliy be discarded - for he is a victim in my eyes.  A victim of public opinion, and a victim of the desire to be on the "winning" team.

[Dmitri]

Even, I can finally see that bush kills site, it's really quite pathetic, it's just putting Bush's face to the usual death penalty jargon.

Not that I support the death penalty, but that site really doesn't scream out "Bush is a mass murderer who should be stopped at any cost" to me

[evenwolf]

Why can no one ever take the overall thesis of my argument and argue against that? Why must everyone argue a tiny link I posted or a silly bubble comment I use- are those honestly my weakest points? If so I am flattered.

And what is wrong with the "usual" death penalty jargon?  Do you feel the proper way to encourage people not to kill people is to kill people?  I may be black and white in this instance, but really- that's all it is. Whenever I argue against the death penalty to someone- the response I usually hear is:

"If someone killed you son or daughter, raped them, etc etc- do you honestly want that person to live? "   No! Of course not- but if all laws were based on human instinct- imagine the world we would live in!  I could assassinate the man who just cut me off at the intersection, legally!

[Dmitri]

oh no, you got me wrong... there's nothing wrong with the death penalty jargon, it's just like the war jargon, or the euthanasia jargon.

Basically I use jargon to describe anything that's had a massive media saturation. I really wasn't knocking it .

I'll try not to use that word in future, it gets the wrong message across

oh and, I agree with your main points... you're basically saying that man doesn't have the right to choose what is right or wrong... which is true

[Trapezoid]

Some murderers need to be killed. The ones who want to kill again. Some of them figure this out and commit suicide, actually. The people who got drunk and killed their wife's lover should get life in jail. Not that this is how the system works, but I just want to say that there are cases when a person simply shouldn't be on the planet.

Edit: But that's another flame war, innit?  

[Dmitri]

well, when you think about it, a serial killer is just a killer who didn't get caught, if we could get into the minds of our fellow human beings and say "You are inherently evil, therefore you must die" well that'd be all well and good, but we can't do that

and besides... that'd be a nightmare, you'd never know when a magistrate would suddenly rock up to your house and say "You are inherently evil, therefore you must die"

[evenwolf]

Ahah Trap, but that's not what's in question to me.

"there are cases when a person simply shouldn't be on the planet"

I agree with you, like I said- anyone who rapes and kills my offspring I should think I wish them to die.  However, just because I have reason and am so passionate- how do we hand this responsibilty over to the state over who should live or die?  Does the state decide that a person is not fit to live when the public opinion wants to never see his face again?  I should think a Christian based government would see the folly in taking responsibility over a person's existence- no matter how sinister his crime.  

I feel, if the father of the child wants the killer dead- I say give him the opportunity... but not the state.   The state will continue to kill the wrong people, as many studies have proven.  I will find the research that these kids once did and found some state killed like 40 innocent men.

[Darth Mandarb]

Okay people.  Since my 'sarcasm' has obviously offended some of you I will attempt to tone it down, because I do seriously wish to continue proving my point.

Argument:
Saddam kills innocent civilians.  I made this point and it was responded to by saying something about all the people George Bush killed with the death penalty.

My Response
Saddam kills innocent people.  In 1988 he gassed and killed over 6000 innocent people.  In America, people who are given the death penalty are not innocent.  They have been convicted of a crime, and were sentenced to death.  (whether or not they were actually guilty is an argument over the US justice system and shouldn't be touched here ... start another post )  And not every state has the death penalty anyway.  George Bush may be for the death penalty, but so are a lot of other people.


Argument:
US is sticking its nose in where it shouldn't (paraphrasing)

My Response:
Freedom is, in my opinion, the simplest and most important value in the world.  It is something that I feel a lot of people take for granted.  Because I think, and very deeply feel, that freedom should be a worldwide right, I think that where ever there is an injustice, where ever there is a tyrant, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is a people being restricted and denied their freedom, somebody should step up and help out.  To restore freedom where it has been removed.  It seems to me (just my opinion) that it's always the US who steps up.  Why anybody else can't I don't know.  In the words of the constitution "... all men are created equal."  This doesn't just mean Americans.  All people are equal and deserve to have freedom ... use whatever form of government you want, but you must have freedom.

Argument:
I have been called a 'victim'.  A victim of public opinion, and a victim of the desire to be on the winning team.

My Response:
I believe very strongly in the American ideal and way of life.  I believe that America is the greatest nation in the world.  I believe that Saddam must be dealt with.  So I support the action being taken.  I am deeply concerned about the reprecussions of what might happen due to US (and UK) involvement.  I just don't think we could have or should have let the injustice continue any longer.  If caring about my country, and wanting it to remain great, makes me a victim, then I suppose I am a victim.  If caring about what happens to innocent people on the other side of the world, and being behind the effort being undertaken to help them achieve freedom, again, I guess I'm a victim.  I don't consider myself a victim, I consider myself a patriot and true American.


Argument:
The US is a war monger.  They just used this war to stimulate the economy, etc.  (again, paraphrasing)

My Response:
I don't feel that the US is a war monger.  I think 12 years of diplomacy to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq is way too much time.  I feel that the UN failed, that diplomacy failed.  I have spoken to a lot of people who agree with me on this.  I have heard countless people being interviewed on TV and in the papers, and on websites, who feel this same way.  If it was just me, I wouldn't be expressing my opinion so adamantly.  And lastly, this war is going to cost 60 billion dollars plus.  I don't see how that is beneficial to the economy, but I'm not an economics major, so I could be wrong.


That's all for now.

dm

[Dmitri]

darth: Business and economy prospers in the war due to massive government spending, as you said, the government spent 60 billion dollars on this, this means that that 60 bill will go towards the businessess or whatever has any relation towards the war.

To put it in proper terms, the government has made a 60 billion dollar injection into the economy.

just thought I'd try and clarify that point for you

[Kairus]

Darth: I am very sorry to tell you this, you probably will not care about it because you may think I'm just crazy, but you are really brainwashed, and I say it because all the arguments you say are just what the politicians say and everyone can realize they're just sophism...
I agree freedom is a very important value and everyone should have it, but the US have not always advocated for freedom. Thirty years ago the US programmed all Southamerican dictatorships and even gave fundings to the armies so they could stop marxists. Later on, these dictatorships were highly repressive against people, exactly the opposite of freedom. And this I'm saying is no hearsay, it's been confirmed by ex-CIA directors. Don't forget, also, that the US helped even Osama Bin Laden when they were trying to get rid of the USSR, and we all know how his regime was.
Also, the US lent money to Saddam once to buy weapongs even knowing what he would do with it and knowing he would not be able to pay back, and that ended in the Gulf War, remember? And when the general in charge asked for 48 more hours so he could get Saddam (and he really could) daddy Bush stopped the war right there because he wanted Saddam right in the place he were. See how it ended now.
Remember to read the other side of the coin, there is always a hidden interest in every politic action, always.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

darth: Business and economy prospers in the war due to massive government spending, as you said, the government spent 60 billion dollars on this, this means that that 60 bill will go towards the businessess or whatever has any relation towards the war.

To put it in proper terms, the government has made a 60 billion dollar injection into the economy.

just thought I'd try and clarify that point for you

Injection from where? The government doesn't MANUFACTURE MONEY. The government takes money from taxpayers and uses it for various reasons. The war is one of those reasons. The government is not pulling this money out of thin air, it is taking it out of the taxpayers pockets and spending it outside the country on a war that in no way benefits them economically at the moment.  

And might I point out the wonderful people who own these weapons factories and those who will get the no-doubt-lucrative contracts to rebuild iraq are the ones who are gaining, along with anyone who they care to 'contribute' to.

So there goes that excuse.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Argument:
US is sticking its nose in where it shouldn't (paraphrasing)

My Response:
Freedom is, in my opinion, the simplest and most important value in the world.  It is something that I feel a lot of people take for granted.  Because I think, and very deeply feel, that freedom should be a worldwide right, I think that where ever there is an injustice, where ever there is a tyrant, where ever there is oppression, where ever there is a people being restricted and denied their freedom, somebody should step up and help out.  To restore freedom where it has been removed.  It seems to me (just my opinion) that it's always the US who steps up.  Why anybody else can't I don't know.  In the words of the constitution "... all men are created equal."  This doesn't just mean Americans.  All people are equal and deserve to have freedom ... use whatever form of government you want, but you must have freedom

The idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me.  "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"

Ever hear of consensus? And I dont meant a consensus of convenience.

[Darth Mandarb]

The idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me.  "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"

If we (America) don't do it, who will?  Do you think just because Saddam's regime doesn't meet our ideas of freedom we should let him go on killing people?  What about Milosovich?  What about Hitler?  What about Mohammad Farrah Aidid?  These people shouldn't continue to benefit in their reigns of terror just because they don't meet our ideas of freedom.  You either misinterpret what I said/meant or perhaps don't agree?

Darth: I am very sorry to tell you this, you probably will not care about it because you may think I'm just crazy, but you are really brainwashed, and I say it because all the arguments you say are just what the politicians say and everyone can realize they're just sophism...

I don't think you're crazy.  You have your opinions, and you choose to believe what you choose to believe, as I do.  I wouldn't say that makes me any more 'brainwashed' though.  I mean, I can turn around and say that you've been brainwashed by those people you site as your sources.  They can make statements about the evil acts committed by this person or that, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.  Why does what they say mean more than what somebody else says.  It's been my experience that for every person who says one thing, there is always a contradicting point made by somebody else.  Do you believe that every politician is a bad person?  That all they do is lie?

And when the general in charge asked for 48 more hours so he could get Saddam (and he really could) daddy Bush stopped the war right there because he wanted Saddam right in the place he were. See how it ended now.  Remember to read the other side of the coin, there is always a hidden interest in every politic action, always.

The first Gulf War's intention was the liberation of Kuwait.  Not an invasion of Iraq.  That's one of the reasons President Bush called a cease fire.  That's another side of the coin, perhaps you should have read.

I don't mean offense, but you told me to read the other side of the coin.  I'm a historian, and one thing I know for fact is that for everything you think you know about an event, there's always 10 things you don't.  So please, don't make the assumption that I don't 'read the other side of the coin'.  There is a difference between not reading the other side and stating my opinion.

darth: Business and economy prospers in the war due to massive government spending, as you said, the government spent 60 billion dollars on this, this means that that 60 bill will go towards the businessess or whatever has any relation towards the war.
To put it in proper terms, the government has made a 60 billion dollar injection into the economy.
just thought I'd try and clarify that point for you

Well, as I said, I'm no economist, but that didn't clarify anything for me.  That just doesn't make sense.  They're taking money 'from' the economy and spending it 'on' a war ... were is the injection?

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

The idea that the US is the arbiter of freedom in the 'free' world sounds pretty arrogant to me.  "Oh,you don't meet our ideas of freedom, off you go!"

If we (America) don't do it, who will?  Do you think just because Saddam's regime doesn't meet our ideas of freedom we should let him go on killing people?  What about Milosovich?  What about Hitler?  What about Mohammad Farrah Aidid?  These people shouldn't continue to benefit in their reigns of terror just because they don't meet our ideas of freedom.  You either misinterpret what I said/meant or perhaps don't agree?

The reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.

The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.

In my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.

Again, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.

PS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.

[DGMacphee]

Scarpia:
Hmm. Actually, those weapons did not come from the US alone. Besides, they came from private (or semi-private) companies and manufacturers, many of which are located in France and Germany, ironically. These companies have made billions of dollars selling technologi and equipment to the Iraqis, sure. But Saddam could have made them himself, and he would have, if western governments in those years hadn't allowed him to buy them abroad.

Thank you!!

Finally, an opposing reply that isn't loaded with nonsense!

I owe you a steak dinner, Scarpia (or vege if you prefer!)

[Dmitri]

Darth: They're taking it from the tax payers and foreign deficit and injecting it into people and business for the war effort. The government isn't allowed to say "Give me all your money, I'm going to war," to businesses, banks etc.

they have already accumulated the wealth beforehand or borrowed from other countries.

[frobozz]

Hats off to Michael Moore at the Oscars tonight.  He said what needed to be said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/sprj.aa03.oscars/index.html

Michael Moore's acceptance speech, however, earned applause from some -- but hoots of derision from others.

Accompanied by his fellow documentary nominees, Moore, who won best documentary for "Bowling for Columbine," wasted no time in lighting into President Bush, the 2000 election and the war in Iraq.

"I've invited my fellow documentary nominees on stage with us here in solidarity with me," he said, "because we like non-fiction and we live in fictitious times. ... We have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you."

Moore expanded on his comments with the press backstage.

"I'm an American," he said. "You don't leave your citizenship behind when you enter the doors of the Kodak Theatre." He added that expressing opinions is "what I do. I do that in my filmmaking."

Asked what he thought of the catcalls, he said, "Don't report that there was a split decision in the hall because five loud people booed."

-Fro.

[Trapezoid]

It was nice of him to bring all the other nominees up to the stage and make it look like they agreed with him.

[evenwolf]

Please do not turn this into a 'whether or not Michael was justified for exercising free speech during the Oscars' thread.  Please?

[Darth Mandarb]

The reasons given by the administration have changed almost every day, depending on what suits the current mood of the public.

The initial reason for this war was that "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and we must initiate a preemptive strike in order to stop him from attacking us in the future."

We didn't initiate a preemptive strike without first trying to get him disarm through diplmacy.  12 years of diplomacy to be exact.  Do you think we should have left him alone to continue developing these weapons?

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

The third and now the noble reason, ah to liberate the people of iraq. They are so opressed. Well people are opressed all over the world, why isnt the US stepping in there? There's a saying that goes 'A man usually has two reasons for doing anything, one reason that sounds good, another that is the truth'. This is the reason that sounds good.

I would imagine that the US is stepping in.  But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press.  I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation.  Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?

In my opinion, the US has lowered the standards for starting a war. There was no attack by anyone, there was no evidence that there would ever be an attack, there was nothing but a suspicion that he might attack at some future unspecified date. Tomorrow if someone decides the US might attack them sometime in the future, sort of like what n korea is saying, then are they wrong when they attack the US? That reasoning gives every country a reason to attack almost any other country who shows the least bit of aggression towards them. Hell, Saddam didnt even blink towards the US before all this started.

It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly.  Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War?  We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat.  We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War.  They were throwing it in the worlds faces.  Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all.  Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming.  They were asking for it.  I think they wanted this war.

Again, its not about Saddam being good, it is about railroading the world into a war that is causing casualties on all sides and accomplishing little except wiping out every bit of goodwill the US has had in the world, in the short space of a couple of months.

Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'.  Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq.  I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq.  But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.

PS: I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that the US cannot just appoint itself arbiter of what does and does not define freedom according to its own ideas of freedom. So you can't just go attack a country because it is not conforming to what your idea of freedom is. Everybody will end up attacking everybody. Unless you somehow intend to apply this rule to the US only, in which you are making it the arbiter of freedom for the entire world.

I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you.  Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.

[Scarpia]

It has changed from that to being about not complying with the UN resolutions, coupled with telling the UN that the US doesnt really give a rats ass about its opinion, while at the same time conveniently using its resolutions as a reason.

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

I agree that the French leaders are pathetic, they are. And the fact that french people apparently don't get sick of listening to their imperialistic BS, is unbelievable. And the fact that Chirac went on international TV prior to the attacks and said he would not allow the war 'no matter what', is sickening and should be reason enough to throw his incompetent a** out of politics. That kind of uncompromising and stubborn political attitude is a crime.

But France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.

Besides, the permanent members of the UN, France, China, Russia, US and Great Britain were originally selected because they were imperialistic 'super powers' in the World. How does that make sense now? Russia is an empovered, corrupt, weak (in all senses) country. Great Britain is no more of a super power than Germany or Spain. France has never forgotten the dream of world domination, which is the same dream that has haunted Saddam Hussein, Hitler etc. How does that make sense?


Scarpia

[Dave Gilbert]

Debating whether the war is "right" or not is kind of a moot point now.  We're there.  We're levelling the city.  It makes me ill to think about it.  Regardless if this war is JUSTIFIED OR NOT, this "Shock and Awe" campaign is complete overkill.  Is all this destruction really recessary?  I heard on the news Friday that "Ten major buildings have been destroyed in the last three minutes."  Is that what we're trying to do?  Take the September 11th attack and unleash the same horror ten times over?  Beh.

[Darth Mandarb]

Some good points.

But France isn't the reason why Bush couldn't get the support of the Security Council. Noone denies that the US would have had a whole lot less than the required 9 votes. It wouldn't even have been necessary for France to use their veto.

I think that too many of the countries wanted to support the US but were too invested with a relationship with France, and since France wasn't going to back it they were too chicken shit to step up.  Plus, and I'll be the first to admit this, the US tends to do what they want regardless of public/world opinion.  Almost all those countries who wouldn't support the US originally have now stepped up.  The coalition has gotten like 42 members in support now.

The AGS board: 'War Unleashed ...' ArmisticeI don't think I'm going to reply to this thread anymore.  I know some of you now hate me (or perhaps just strongly dislike me) and I am saddened by that.   I respect that you all believe as strongly as you do, I hope you can respect that I believe what I believe strongly as well.  But to be honest I'm getting a headache from this thread and I don't want that.  There's enough anger and dissent in the world right now.  I don't want to add (even in this small insignificant way) to it.  I became a member of this forum because I found AGS and am a huge fan of adventure games and I wanted to add to this community.

So I'll make this 'truce' pledge to all of you.  I will continue to post in other threads.  I won't hold my values and beliefs against any of you who oppose them in other posts/threads if you'll do the same for me.  This war is a touchy subject, but lets see if we can rise above our differences and get past this.  I look forward to hearing from you guys (and gals) in other threads.

dm

PS
If there are any serious questions that any of you want me to reply to please PM me.

[Timosity]

I can respect people oppinions whether I agree with them or not, and I don't hold anything against you Darth-Mandarb, even though I don't agree with a lot of it.

I've avoided this thread like the plague, cause i'm sick of all this war debate, I've mentioned my own opinions in the other war threads.

It has all started now and who knows how long it will go for and how many unnecessary lives will be lost. 9/11 is small fry compared to what has been done in return in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it will only get worse. Isn't this just training for North Korea.

I don't like Australia's involvement, being one of very few nations that supplied troops, the main reason is that our Prime minister John Howard was visiting the USA on 9/11 and was effected by it personally. but in a free democratic country, we still have no say.

I also don't like the idea that they are going after a "murderous dictator" and their solution is murdering others to get to hopefully murder him.

aren't most religions against murder, Most nations claim to have a religious background and follow the lord or whoever, but is this all just ignored when it comes to war? Is it any different killing a murderer, than it is a child.

surely if hell exists, even the most moralistic people involved in this war will be going straight there whether they like it or not. It's hereditary for Bush, hell is in his gene's no matter how religious he thinks he is. He'll get to meet Saddam there in person.

I just hope this is over soon.

I hate seeing footage of Troops blowing up shit and going Whoo hoo, and laughing. It's like watching little kids playing war games in the backyard. These types of people shouldn't be given weapons, but on the other hand, I guess those types are the types that join the armed forces.

In a war if you kill someone do you go to prison for murder? no, you come back as a hero with a mental disorder, that's probably worse than gaol.

It's just a giant step back for mankind, but it is human nature, we think we're civilised but it is just a figment of our vivid imagination.

[Andail]

I'm with France on this one.

I think it's strange that people in USA can become so full of hatred just because another country doesn't agree with the foreign policy of their leaders.

So what about the bloody world war 2? It was sixty years ago, and it wasn't like the americans took part just to liberate France, they were involved because it was a world war, and it wasn't like they suffered nearly as much as the french people, who did the horse job, beeing the neighbours and all.

Be happy that america didn't have to suffer that much. Be glad that you're on an isolated continent, but don't think for a minute that after ww2, you would have been completely unaffected by a potential german regime in Europe.

So holding that as some bloody "we helped you back then, now you should help us"-argument, that's plain stupid. Every country has the rights to make their own decisions, and if you have a hard time accepting that without calling them cowards or whimps or schmucks or anti-american, than all the hate it breeds will be your problem.

I'm against the war, I'm against Bush, just like France. I'm not against the americans, and surely most of the french people are not, at least not nearly as much as how the american opinion is againt France.

I think the biggest problem for americans is that every time someone has a different opinion than the government, they are called anti-american. In Sweden, there is no such concept as "anti-swedish". There is a constant debate going on whether our leaders are good or not, and they partake in these debates themselves. If people disagree, it's only natural.

Must be difficult for you to live in a country where there is so much hatred to those who speak against your authorities.

So every time you call the french people plain stupid names and whatnot, I will take personal offense.
And I'm sure you can do better than blaiming the war on one of the few countries who bravely stood up and expressed their yearn for peace. That's just nonsense.
USA wanted the war, France did not want it. Don't confuse the terms here, we don't want some deceptive propaganda war going on.

[Roy Lazarovich]

I don't know if anyone raised this issue in this post, but I'm watching FOX News and they seem to be detailing all the plans of the coalition forces for the viewers, isn't that a breach of military intel?, I mean, won't Saddam's forces be able to forsee their movements and be better prepared by this? isn't there supposed to be a fog of war about military plans of action?

[Barcik]

So far, I wasn't intending to touch this thread with a ten-foot pole, but now that there is some strictly objective stuff here, I'll post.

I think that FOX News really know nothing about the Coalition's plans. There is a huge fog of war about this war. The journalists are only in a few places where the fighting takes place, and almost nothing is really known. There has been much more fighting than what could be gathered by watching TV. The US are hiding the facts about the war very well, and I think they are doing the right thing.

[Roy Lazarovich]

Well, I don't know, they seem to be pretty certain about what they show, they actually show the map and draw lines to show how the tanks are going to cross the euphraties (probably a spelling mistake, but you and I know it as the biblical "Prat" river ) river, and how the choppers are supposed to provide the cover

[Barcik]

They can always presume, and the fact that this managed to go through military censore proves something.

[TheYak]

Darth...  if you're still reading this thread, I would encourage you to continue posting.  I disagree with a vast majority of things you've stated, but I enjoy the arguments you've put forth.  For the most part, I think you're expressing yourself intelligently and with excellent organization.  It would also appear that you're actually reading through all of the refuting posts whereas many that are posting in this thread are not.  

Everybody, I would encourage you to continue this discussion by arguing the points stated.  If somebody has said something wrong - disprove it or shut the hell up.  If somebody's opinion doesn't match yours, state your opinion... even going so far as to offer reasons why your opinion makes sense and the other's doesn't.  For the most part, I consider this group a rather more mature sampling of the masses than is readily available on much of the web... it'd be nice if we'd keep it that way.  Let's stop the attacks on personal aspects and focus more on the arguments themselves.

Pesty...  the US doesn't manufacture money?  Are you sure about this?  Why are we in debt then?  We've been printing currency for decades that has no basis on reality...  no gold and no goods to back it up.

For those that like a simplisitic argument or prefer debates in black and white, I have to state it this way:
Are we all separate countries?  Should each country be allowed to rule itself in whatever manner seems fit to them?  

If you would answer yes to the above, then you (logically) should be against the US's activity in Iraq.  

If you answer no, then you're either saying a) Countries should be able to rule themselves providing what they wish to enforce is in good standing with my personal morals and opinions (sounds rather hypocritical, doesn't it?) or b) There should be a one-world government or at least a separate country rules which are overseen by a government or representative body made up of all countries (The present example is the UN).  

The second statement only works if all countries under that legislation abide by its decisions or are able to bring the issue back under discussion and convince the rest of the ruling body to agree with their point of view.  

I admit that I may have missed a point of view there but I'm pretty sure that that covers basically everybody.  By all of the statements above, the actions of the "allied" forces are wrong.  "Allied" forces?  Why is the news even calling it that?  We (the US) have ignored our allies and have only the following of those that fear the US (or desire its financial support).  Hmm..  looks like we've become the bully of the world instead of the peacekeeper.    Some time ago, when we deigned to enter the first of the World Wars we began to see ourselves as the world's peacekeeper.  The country appointed by God, righteousness and/or morale superiority to decide how the world should be run.  When we at least had a sense of conscience behind this misconception, it was on the verge of making sense.  Now that we're under dysfunctional leadership, we're playing the part of the petty tyrant discipling an errant child.

I'm proud of much of our heritage.  I'm proud of many of my fellow citizens.  I'm amazed at how much the United States of America has contributed to the world over-all.  I'm awed that many of the technical, ethical and environmental achievements can be attributed to our country.   However, I'm ashamed of our government in its current state.  I'm appalled that we've given up many of our rights with the enactment of the homeland security act.  I experienced my first embarassment when the US refused to see the merit of the Kyoto convention's agreement.

The route the US took with Kyoto should've shown everyone what would be happening in the future under the rule of King Bush II -- No Kyoto, screw everybody else, we don't give a damn about the Earth as long as our country is prosperous.

[Even]

Fox news reporting "military strategies" is pure sensationalism, reporting the most "thorough" news in an attempt to win ratings.  In the end, they know they are spewing fiction but to them it hardly matters since the US population will simply watch more of their network's commercials and not complain about the lies, which they can always regard as a result of being misinformed- or "decoying" enemy forces..  which is BS, because it is solely for ratings.

Solution? boycott Fox news, hehehe

[Pumaman]

The justification for starting this war is very much a matter of debate, as there are no arguments I can see that make sense.

First of all they say 'Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed' - but North Korea does have nuclear missiles, so why aren't we attacking them?

Then they say 'Iraq ignored the UN resolution'. But 10 years ago there was a UN resolution telling Israel to give Palestinian areas independent rule - that's been ignored for years on end, and the US didn't charge in with the troops.

The latest thing seems to be 'Saddam is an evil man and must be stopped'. That's true - but there are plenty more evil regimes out there, so why pick on him?


Anyway, it's started now, there's nothing we can do, and it probably is for the best to remove Saddam from power. Seeing the TV footage of the normal Iraqi people dancing in the streets after the Allied troops took over the town gave me confidence that the people there probably do actually support this war.

[TheYak]

Just a quick note:

Here's a blurb by Senator McCarthy that I have to agree with.  He's against this war and seems unable to comprehend any correct motivation or purpose behind it either.

Here's a bit of the article:

McCarthy, whose 1968 Democratic presidential campaign helped galvanize opposition to the Vietnam War, has been a staunch opponent of war in Iraq and believes it's the result of a military and political system run amok.

The military industry has become too big and its influence on politicians â€" Republican and Democrat â€" too strong, McCarthy said. He compared President Bush (news - web sites) to the Romans, who, he said, attacked northern Africa because they needed something to do.

"Bush has found a cause," said McCarthy, who turns 87 Saturday.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html - why don't we go a little further back than a convenient time frame?

I would imagine that the US is stepping in.  But if it doesn't come down to military action it doesn't get much press.  I don't like the cynasism in the world that demands that there's always deceit in every situation.  Why can't the reason that sounds good and the truth sometimes be the same?

Because this wasn't the reason to begin with. You can try to console yourself with it, feel very noble and Bush is counting on that to win him his next election. Regardless, it is irrelevant, it was not the cause of this war. Cuba was closer if you just needed to feel good about yourself.

It's not like the US said, "Well, they might attack us so let's invade" that's silly.  Iraq has been defying the UN for 12 years since the end of the Gulf War?  We didn't (necessarily) invade Iraq just because of their potential threat.  We invaded because they weren't disarming and were defying the sanctions put on them after the Gulf War.  They were throwing it in the worlds faces.  Denying interviews with weapons inspectors, denying them entrance into certain areas, denying them entrance into Iraq at all.  Then giving the run around about supposedly disarming.  They were asking for it.  I think they wanted this war.

Two words: North Korea.  

Removing a dictator from power and freeing an oppressed people is not 'accomplishing little'.  Again, I say I am afraid of world reaction to what we're doing over there, but again, it's worth it, for the people of Iraq.  I know, and hate that fact, that many will die because of the war in Iraq.  But if Saddam is left in power, far worse tradgedies will continue, in Iraq and possibly around the world.

Yeah, somehow given the US history and its attitude towards the rest of the world, especially those who disagree with it, doesn't really allow me to attribute this war to thier sense of goodwill towards other peoples.  

I didn't misinterpret you, I just don't agree with you.  Freedom is freedom, and everybody should have it.

China is not exactly free. Yet the US has no problems whatsoever carrying on trade with them and injecting money into thier economy. This war isn't about freedom. And again, I question the appointment of the US as the arbiter of freedom for the whole world. It is absurd and it is arrogant.

I doubt most people will dislike you unless you attack them, instead of attacking the points they make. Everyone's allowed to have an opinion and most people posting anti-war here don't have a problem with you, they have a problem with the war.

I've refrained from making any personal attacks on you, I know nothing about you. The points you make however, are fair game.

[Helm]

Why anybody else can't I don't know.

No person with even basic (and unbiased) historic training would ever say such a thing. The reason the  US is the one to step in and 'liberate' parts of the world is because it's the only country which is in the position to do so, -in economic and influential terms - since the fall of the Soviet Union. There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness, since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such. This has resulted in wars in bosnia, serbia, afghanistan and now iraq (again). And in none of those countries, has there been eshtablished anything else than an 'fake' goverment after the US. intervention. Certainly no freedom has been given to the people. Merely a switch of the power structure so it's controlled by the US.

I mean, come on, let's not hide behind our collective finger.


Oh, and mister well-read historian, you said that if S.H. is removed from power, then that makes it all worth it. That's called "the end justify the means" and seems pretty totalitarian to me, esp. spoken by self-proclaimed well-read, cultivated fellow like you.

You see, I'm confused.

According to you, the absolute end is freedom, and nothing should be above it. So how come you're giving the freedom away so another end - the removal of S.H. from office - can be attained?

Isn't that a contradiction?

[Kairus]

The reason the  US is the one to step in and 'liberate' parts of the world is because it's the only country which is in the position to do so, -in economic and influential terms - since the fall of the Soviet Union. There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness,

You know... China's been gathering power lately It hasn't acted yet, but I think the US is starting to consider them the next possible real enemy. I can't really tell which of them is worse... American empire: bad... Chinese empire: ooooouh... creepy!
Nothing to do with the current war... it just came to my mind when I read your post.

since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such.

Now, will the UN punish the US for starting a war without permission with an economical block or something like they do to weaker countries, even Iraq?
Obviously it won't... now... there we could say the UN is already death, or at least it's never going to be what it was supposed to.

[Matt Brown]

nahh....not china. north korea is next. then maybe sudan or something.


haha, or france

[DGMacphee from Uni]

I doubt China will be next.

I'll be using the typical leftist "the war is about oil and power" arguement here.

China produces approx half the Gas that Iraq has and a approx a third the oil that Iraq has.

Even when compared to the US, China produces a little more oil than the US (which will change after the Iraq war) and a lot less gas than the US.


As for a nuclear threat:

Even with uranium, the US's output is higher than China's -- so not much chance for the US government to say they have the potential to make "weapons of mass destruction" more powerful than the US can make.

And I doubt the US has much need for the solar, wind and hyrdo technology.


Not only that, but (to use a more right-wing arguement here) the country's government is in no decent economic state to start buying "weapons of mass destruction".


I doubt the US government see it as either an energy target or a weapons threat.

[ratracer]

It's things like this that me suspicious...

in The Guardian today:

"A subsidiary of Halliburton, vice-president Dick Cheney's old company, has been awarded a contract by the US army to put out fires and repair damaged infrastructure in the Iraqi oil industry. The value of the deal has not been officially disclosed, but is said to be in the region of $1bn.

Mr Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton until 2000 but gave up his stake in the company on becoming US vice-president. He reportedly still gets about $1m a year "compensation" from the company."

[DGMacphee]

Funny how the company used be struggling after Cheney left and how the government practically shifted away from it when it was caught up in scandal (especially since Cheney used to be a shareholder -- but he obviously had nothig to do with that scandal, right?)

Very ironic that the government shifted so far away from it.

Until now.

Now, it's a hundred times more ironic.

And Halliburton is just the tip of the iceburg.

[jayel_]

So the US army sets Iraqi oil wells on fire, while Bush's political allies make fortune putting out the fires and building new oil wells... again.  I hate sequels with a recycled plot.

[DGMacphee]

But it's such entertaining TV viewing!

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

I realise the war is 'over', whatever that means but I found the link to be interesting: http://www.xeni.net/images/boingboing/barlowfriendz_88_pox_americana.htm

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

The UN failed.  Actually, I don't really blame the UN.  I blame France.  I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US.  The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

20 million Russians who died in WWII and 9.5 million who died in WWI must be very restless in their graves now because they saved everyone else's ass. My great granfather was one of them. he died in Belgium the day Berlin was taken.  UN are warmongers. France has a right to have it's own opinion on things.

[DGMacphee]

Beautifully stated, Sasha.


I was interested to see both France and Germany joined together in opposition against the unsupported Iraqi War.

It's amazing what changes in 50 or 60 years.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

In my short lifetime, I remember 3 wars, 2 of them American. That's not counting the gulf war.  One was the war on Yougoslavia, the other is the Iraqi war now. USA have taken part in most of the armed conflicts in this century. They want peace and yet they bomb the world to pieces. oh, the irony!

[DGMacphee]

I like the irony the late Bill Hicks expressed:

"We arm these littlel countries, then we send troops to blow the shit out of them! We're like the bullies of the world right now! We're like Jack palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet!"

[Las Naranjas]

My life time, going backwards

Gulf War 2
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Bosnia, Croatia et al
Gulf 1
Panama
Afghanistan (again)

plus those that started before I was born and continued

Columbia
Chechnya
West Papua
East timor
Aceh
Nepal
N. Ireland
Kashmir
Bougainville
the Koreas are still at an official state of war
Iran-Iraq
the two intifatas
Kurds v Iraq and Turkey
The Congo (including 7 nations and the massacres of Rwanda and elsewhere. It's somewhat comparable to WW1, but they're only black)
countless seperatist wars on western China we don't get to hear about
Tamils in Sri Lanka
Western Sahara
the basques

etc. et.c etc.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/international.cfm?id=463562003

This 'war' gets more ludicrous by the minute. I'm sure they'll come up with proof of these weapons, given a few more months to put them there.

The Washington Post said Britain was encouraging its experts working for Mr Blix to resist America's invitations to jump ship and join an American-led inspection team.

Corporate warfare in all its glory.

"If the facts don't match the theory - change the facts." (Albert Einstein).

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

In small countries in Africa it is common for a tribe to kill 200 of an another tribe for no reason. The US knows. Why don't they stop it, them beeing so noble and just? Because those people have nothing.

[Las Naranjas]

200? Try 400,000

And that was just in '94.

The whole quasi cold war, nationalistic, ethnic, post colonialist mess that's in South Central republic has taken millions upon millions since the 60's.

It's still the largest scale conflict in the world, and has been wince the Vietnam war ended.

But they're black.

[Bob The Hun]

In small countries in Africa it is common for a tribe to kill 200 of an another tribe for no reason. The US knows. Why don't they stop it, them beeing so noble and just? Because those people have nothing.

So you're saying that we should get involved in every little conflict around the globe? If you're admitting that, you're admitting that we had a right to be in Vietnam.
I've been gone for quite a while, so most of you don't remember me. If anybody does, you might remember that I'm a conservative. Since a majority of this discussion seems to be on the left, I decided I'd post my opinions.
As I was saying, we shouldn't get into every little conflict around the world. I realize that every death is a horrible event, and 200 is worse. But over the course of his regime, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million people.
Also, remember that after we won the first Gulf War (after Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait) Saddam had to follow all of these UN resolutions.
However, he broke those resolutions, all the while killing more of his own people.

20 million Russians who died in WWII

Think of not only these deaths, but how many more deaths could of been avoided if the League of Nations had enforced the treaty of Versailles when Hitler broke it. That's why the League of Nations had it's credibility destroyed: because it did not enforce it's treaties.
I'm starting to see some parallels, here.
Also, what's with all the stuff about the US fighting the war for Iraq's oil?

So the US army sets Iraqi oil wells on fire, while Bush's political allies make fortune putting out the fires and building new oil wells... again.

First off, the US army put out the oil fires. It was the Iraqi troops, under command of Saddam, who lit them on fire. Same thing happened in the first Gulf war, if you'll remember. And I'd like to clear this up: Are we taking oil from the wells? No. Are we taking the oil for ourself? No.
The Iraqi government and people are going to be profiting from the oil.

China produces a little more oil than the US (which will change after the Iraq war)

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

The oil is going to be sold to pay for the 'reconstruction' of Iraq, which involves nice lucrative government contracts to Fortune 500 companies. And I am very convinced now this is all about the money, which the oil factors into. But come back in a month, we'll see.

And there are no links between him and any terrorists, he and Bin Laden are enemies.
Might I also point out the US had links with these same terrorists when it was in its interest to do so?

Where are these great Weapons of Mass Destructions? If they are there, why don't they want the inspectors to return?

Don't believe all that propaganda you hear.

[Femme Stab Mode >:D]

The prices on oil didn't suit US, so they needed an armed conflict in an oil-rich country to change the oil prices.  The prices did change, and if you watch the stock market, the war did give the US economy a boost.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

Oh yeah here's that proof you wanted: http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn04232003.html

http://www.fingaz.co.zw/fingaz/2003/April/April24/3632.shtml

http://www.irna.com/en/head/030420110142.ehe.shtml

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030420013755.f36w5rwx.html

[DGMacphee from work]

Hi again Bob, and welcome again -- it's good to have a different opinion on this board.

Here are a few points to think about as a counter to your arguement.

As I was saying, we shouldn't get into every little conflict around the world. I realize that every death is a horrible event, and 200 is worse. But over the course of his regime, Saddam Hussein has killed over one million people.

And how many people do you think the Bush family has killed?

Total the number of people killed in Texas executions, plus the number of people who commit suicide from being out of work due to corperate downsizing (due to the Bush family's tax breaks), plus the number of people murdered because the both Bushes' haven't done a thing to regulate guns, plus the number of civillians killed in wars with Bush (George and George W) interference, plus the number of people that the CIA have killed (god knows how many) during both Bushes' presidency.

But it's only the deaths that you hear about that count, right?

Not the ones that are hidden away from mainstream media.

Saddam isn't the only dictator in the world.

The Bush and his family are dictators of a different kind -- corporate dictators.

Think of not only these deaths, but how many more deaths could of been avoided if the League of Nations had enforced the treaty of Versailles when Hitler broke it. That's why the League of Nations had it's credibility destroyed: because it did not enforce it's treaties.
I'm starting to see some parallels, here.
Also, what's with all the stuff about the US fighting the war for Iraq's oil?

While you're on the subject of parallels, remember Panama?

There's more in common with the latest Iraqi war and Panama than there is with WWII.

Just replace "Noriega" with "Saddam", and "drugs" with "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Oh yeah -- And add a "W" in the President's name.

Weren't the US trying to liberate Panama's civilians from Noriega, even though they murdered 4,000 of them -- some even after Noriega had fled?

First off, the US army put out the oil fires. It was the Iraqi troops, under command of Saddam, who lit them on fire. Same thing happened in the first Gulf war, if you'll remember. And I'd like to clear this up: Are we taking oil from the wells? No. Are we taking the oil for ourself? No.
The Iraqi government and people are going to be profiting from the oil.

See ._. (OTG)'s comments.

You all make it sound like we're going to own Iraq, rather than helping them set up a democracy. Listen. We're not going to build oil wells and steal all of Iraq's oil for ourselves. The oil wells will be a source of revenue for the new, free Iraq. I can assure you that we won't take one drop of their oil. If you continue to argue that this war is about oil, i demand to see solid facts.
I could go into the links between Saddam and terrorist organizations, but I need to get some sleep, so I'll go into that later.

So far they've only been able to find one terrorist hiding in Iraq -- and his big claim to fame was hijacking a large boat in the 80s.

Think about this: Why doesn't the US focus on finding Osama, who was supposed to have caused the 9/11 attacks, which started this whole mess?

And speaking of a new, free Iraq -- How can Iraq be truely free if their hospitals are bombed, there's no electricity, the whole city has been looted, and everybody's businesses have been blown away?

Look at Afghanistan -- the UN estimated it would take $10 billion to rebuild the country, yet Bush has only spared $650 million.

How is the US Government supposed to rebuild Iraq when they can't even spare cash for Afghanistan.

In fact, how is the US supposed to provide international aid when they can't even provide national aid?

Experts say there are parts in the US that resemble third-world countries -- There's no business of commerce because most companies have packed up their factories and shifted them overseas becasue of cheap labour.

And ._. (OTG) has provided the evidence you needed that the war was about oil (among other seedy things).

[Grog_boy]

Great points CGMacphee....  Everything that you said is true, just another thing for the oil issue... The US said that would accept oil as a form of payment for reconstruct the Iraqui.... That's total nonsense!!!!! The destroy and then charge to rebuild... I think that's all I have to say...

Except:

Experts say there are parts in the US that resemble third-world countries -- There's no business of commerce because most companies have packed up their factories and shifted them overseas becasue of cheap labour.

HEY! I live in a third world country!! I want respect!!!! haha  

[DGMacphee]

Which country, Grog-Boy?

(BTW, I'm only going on what I've studied and I respect the civillians of all third-world countries. But judging from your smiley at the end of your comment, you already knew that, didn't you? )

[Bob The Hun]

On the whole war being about oil:
Why would Bush go to the trouble of invading another country just for oil when there is even more oil right here in the US? There are large deposits of oil in Alaska and some of the largest deposits in the world in the Gulf of Mexico? If he wanted oil enough to invade a country, why wouldn't he drill here instead?

The prices on oil didn't suit US, so they needed an armed conflict in an oil-rich country to change the oil prices

Like i just said, we could have gotten even more oil and lowered prices even more by drilling in our own country. That's why this whole "war for oil" argument doesn't make much sense to me.

Total the number of people killed in Texas executions, plus the number of people who commit suicide from being out of work due to corperate downsizing (due to the Bush family's tax breaks), plus the number of people murdered because the both Bushes' haven't done a thing to regulate guns, plus the number of civillians killed in wars with Bush (George and George W) interference, plus the number of people that the CIA have killed (god knows how many) during both Bushes' presidency.

First off, in texas executions, people convicted of murder and lord only knows what else die. The death penalty isn't murder. Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing innocent people, not people guilty of hideous crimes against humanity.
Corporate downsizing due to Bush's tax breaks? Tax breaks let people keep more of their own money, giving them more disposible income, and, in the case of business, allowing room for more employees due to a cut in expenses. Simple economics. How would the government not taking away as much of your money hurt you, anyway?
The number of murders due to lack of gun control? Theres a couple of things i don't get about gun control. First off, if you put stricter laws on guns, how is that going to stop a murderer from obtaining them? Drugs are illegal, and those are easy to obtain illegally. Besides, is making gun-owning a crime really going to stop people who use them to murder somebody with? We had murder before guns, too. Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Think about this: Why doesn't the US focus on finding Osama, who was supposed to have caused the 9/11 attacks, which started this whole mess?

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him. We destroyed his army in Afghanistan, and for all we know he could very well be dead already. We're not done looking for Osama, contrary to some people claiming that we've given up.
Well, i have to get some sleep. I'll go into more later.

[OneThinkingGal and ._.]

On the whole war being about oil:
Why would Bush go to the trouble of invading another country just for oil when there is even more oil right here in the US? There are large deposits of oil in Alaska and some of the largest deposits in the world in the Gulf of Mexico? If he wanted oil enough to invade a country, why wouldn't he drill here instead?

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/113/nation/US_eyes_drilling_on_Alaska_coast+.shtml (cut and paste link, yabb messes up at the +)
http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-24-10.asp

Its an uphill battle convincing your own people that you should be drilling in wildlife refuges. Its much easier to go attack a defenceless country that just happens to have oodles of oil

Also:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=6393

Extract:

Moreover, considering the aforementioned penchant of Chavez to do things that rub Washington the wrong way, it's generally assumed that there's no love lost for his government in the corridors of the White House and State Department. Those sentiments are unlikely to change anytime soon given the fact that Venezuela is an important exporter of oil to the US, that those exports are now dwindling to a trickle, and the fact of the war with Iraq.

One more factor in the equation.

Oh yeah funny you should mention this:

Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

How about:
The NRA says, 'Guns don't kill people - people kill people.' That may be true, but I think the gun helps. You're not going to kill many people by standing around shouting 'bang bang!'.

IMO, gun control would help in a lot of situations, today's school shooting is one example. If things are available easily, if they are lying around, and we are all human, we get mad, we do stupid things. I don't think its a good idea to have a lethal weapon lying around. The sheer numbers of guns around, make it easier for them to be stolen, illegally bought and end up in the wrong hands.

Oh yeah in case you are not familiar with the shooting thing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34769-2003Apr24.html

[DGMacphee]

First off, in texas executions, people convicted of murder and lord only knows what else die. The death penalty isn't murder. Saddam Hussein was killing and torturing innocent people, not people guilty of hideous crimes against humanity.

A few months ago there was a British man in Texas sentenced to the death penalty for a murder.

A little while later, his defence lawyers found evidence that proved he didn't do it.

But it was too late -- he was dead.

Corporate downsizing due to Bush's tax breaks? Tax breaks let people keep more of their own money, giving them more disposible income, and, in the case of business, allowing room for more employees due to a cut in expenses. Simple economics. How would the government not taking away as much of your money hurt you, anyway?

Simple economics doesn't always work that way -- businesses have other motives.

A lot of the large companies that are failing ask for tax breaks from the government.

After the companies regain stability, they ship their factories to countries with cheaper labour.

it's happened so many times and I can provide you with a list of companies that have.

The number of murders due to lack of gun control? Theres a couple of things i don't get about gun control. First off, if you put stricter laws on guns, how is that going to stop a murderer from obtaining them? Drugs are illegal, and those are easy to obtain illegally. Besides, is making gun-owning a crime really going to stop people who use them to murder somebody with? We had murder before guns, too. Like the NRA says, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Strangely enough, most of the murders commited in the US are gun-related.

Sure, there's always going to be murders, but in this instance the government CAN DO SOMETHING about it.

As for "guns not killing people; people killing people", I say a lot less murders would be committed if you didn't give those people guns.

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him. We destroyed his army in Afghanistan, and for all we know he could very well be dead already. We're not done looking for Osama, contrary to some people claiming that we've given up.

First of all the US did not destroy "his army" in Afghanistan.

They "destroyed" the Taliban, which was an Afghan militant group with extreme Islamic beliefs (as you probably know).

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan for about 7 years and the US didn't do a damn thing about the number of pbulic executions until 2001.

Then the UN forced sanctions in 1998 after the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania because Osama was a "guest" in Afghanistan.

Then Sept 11 2001 rocked the world and Bush threatened to get the terrorists and "those that harbour them".

The Taliban were a part of "those that harbour them" but they are not Osama's army.

Osama is Saudi-born and the head of Al'Qeada, which has not been stamped out yet.

He is not the head of the Afghan Taliban.

Secondly, how much do you know about Osama's business dealings?

Did you know he used to own a large part of a company operated by Bush Sr?

And did you know he was trained by the CIA as a Middle-Eastern operative?

(In fact, the same thing happened with Noriega)

That's why I'm asking you why there hasn't been any mention of Osama in ages.