War unleashed...

[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