War unleashed...

[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?