# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  For All You People Whining About The War In Iraq

## Hominus Feralis

Sorry, Seeker, but there&#39;s gonna be a tad bit of flaming here.

Leo, I just read in one of your posts that you think Iraq would have been better off if Sadam was still in power.

Who the hell gave you the right to make that kind of dumbass, ignorant statement. Have you ever been to pre or post war Iraq? Do you know what went on there before and after the takeover. NO. All your puny, liberal, inconsistent, opinionated brain knows is what CNN and NBC tell you. 

Anyone with half a brain knows that it is not a protest against the war. Its the same old fight between conservatives and liberals for power. The war is simply a tool to embarass Bush.

I have talked to several Marines, Airmen, and Amry footsoldiers, all of whom are connected to a Marine i work with. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them saw the terror Sadam caused and how happy the Iraqis were to see salvation.

Quit your little flagburning statements about blaming America first and look at which is the more evil country.

And really you have no basis behind what you say. I dont see your life in the line of danger. You dont get shot at everyday and have to worry about mortors hitting your tent. You just sit back in comphy, old America and formulate opioions about shit you have no idea about. 

Our soldiers lay down their lives everyday, but since you have no experience with that sort of situation you cant understand the value of a single human life besides your own.

Ok...........time to cool down

Sorry seeker

----------


## nina

Haha, wow...you&#39;ve made some really idiotic statements and assumptions in this post and come off sounding...well...a bit ignorant. Sorry.  :smiley: 





> You just sit back in comphy, old America and formulate opioions about shit you have no idea about.[/b]



 - lmao @ that statement *shakes her head*

----------


## Howie

> Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago&#39;s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don&#39;t want the truth because deep down in places you don&#39;t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don&#39;t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.[/b]



That&#39;s all.

----------


## shark!

> Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago&#39;s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don&#39;t want the truth because deep down in places you don&#39;t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don&#39;t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.[/b]





you&#39;re not seriously claiming that&#39;s what the war in Iraq is?...are you?  


personaly I do think we should question where are armies are...what they do...which children they kill... 

OR we could do what the condescending man quoted is saying...

----------


## wombing

saddam oppressed, tortured, killed, deceived.

  some of the american occupiers have oppressed, tortured, killed, deceived.

  it would be better if neither saddam or unkie sam were in power. i really cannot say whether or not one or the other is "better&#39;. it would take years of meticulous research to forumulate an opinion without sounding ignorant.

  however, it does seem that saddam has one thing going for him that the yanks don&#39;t. 

   he actually had the country under control.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

first of all, thank you howetzer

Second, im really glad to see there are some "blame america first" people here

how were my statements ignorant? noboby knows whats going on over there except the military and the news lies to you. This is nothing new

by the way, howetzer, where did you get that text. MIKEY LIKES IT&#33;&#33;&#33;

----------


## Kaniaz

The people that have benefited most from the War on Iraq most is not America _or_ Iraq, I think it&#39;s probably the media. That is to say, it&#39;s been a great catalyst for scandal, hysteria and finger pointing - basically what 90% of the media lives for. (Although it&#39;s far from impossible to get the straight facts if you look hard enough). Still, just food for thought.

I would be an ass if I made a comment on the war on Iraq. I don&#39;t know nearly enough about it and it&#39;s pretty difficult to get a fact without bias. So, sorry, but I just can&#39;t form an opinon. That said, nearly everyone in this thread so far has used - not enteriely, though - ad hominems to prove their argument. Oops.

----------


## Jess

> That said, nearly everyone in this thread so far has used - not enteriely, though - ad hominems to prove their argument. Oops.[/b]



Isn&#39;t saying _that_ ad hominems?    :tongue2:

----------


## Hominus Feralis

kaniaz, why cant everyone on earth be like you?

You should be PRIME MINISTER&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#  33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

----------


## Gwendolyn

The war in Iraq wasn&#39;t even about Saddam, guys. Of course he needed to be taken down, but he was pretty much used as a &#39;reason&#39; to go to war. Hell, the only reason that we&#39;re there is because of the stake in the oil companies the President and Cheney have. Saddam never had any weapons, and although he was a cruel motherfucker, we had no reason to to any of the things we did. I appreciate our military deeply, but I wish they would bring our boys back, so that no more die for a war that is being performed because of the president&#39;s whims...So, fuck the war...I guess that&#39;s my bottom line.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

very valid point gwendolyn

----------


## NeAvO

> The war in Iraq wasn&#39;t even about Saddam, guys. Of course he needed to be taken down, but he was pretty much used as a &#39;reason&#39; to go to war. Hell, the only reason that we&#39;re there is because of the stake in the oil companies the President and Cheney have. Saddam never had any weapons, and although he was a cruel motherfucker, we had no reason to to any of the things we did. I appreciate our military deeply, but I wish they would bring our boys back, so that no more die for a war that is being performed because of the president&#39;s whims...So, fuck the war...I guess that&#39;s my bottom line.
> [/b]



Yup thats exactly what I thought, around a year after Saddam was caught England, USA and Russia opened oil plants.

Btw why are soldiers still out there anyway?

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Exactly. @ Gwen





> Btw why are soldiers still out there anyway?
> [/b]




To uphold the illusion that the war is honorable, logical and/or justified, at the cost of their lives - tragically following the strings at the ends of the puppet masters&#39; fingers.

----------


## Leo Volont

> Do you know what went on there before and after the takeover. 
> 
> [/b]




Yes, I know all about it. 

You see, I&#39;m educated. 

What we had under Saddam Hussein was a Secular Government that was suppressing the revolutionary tendencies of both the Sunni Fundamental Sects and the Shia Fundamentalist Sects.  Also Iraq&#39;s secular government was managing the Kurdish Revolutionaries in the North who wanted to tear Iraq apart to create an independent Kurdestan -- just so their own fat cats could have their own tyrany.  And the Saddam Government was able to do this, to maintain Peace and Order with relatively little duress or bloodshed, when compared to how much Blood and Duress the Americans have been using without the leanest fraction of the success that Saddam had with his regime. 

You see, what all too many idiots forget is that Saddam was once handpicked by the CIA simply because he was the best man for the job.  A Secularist.  for 8 years Saddam fought against Iran, as America&#39;s Surrogate. 

he took Kuwait because he thought that after spending 1,000,000 Iraqi Lives for a War waged entirely for American Self Interests, that he deserved it.  That Iraq deserved it. 

Afterall, Bush, the Old Bush, had been CIA Director all the time when Saddam Hussein was fighting as America&#39;s Proxy againt Iran.  What had to have happened was that George Bush Sr made a promise to Saddam Hussein.  "You fight this War against Iran, and we will let you take Kuwait". 

Why else do you think that the moment George Bush Sr became President that Hussein would invade Kuwait.  he was merely collecting on an old debt. 

And why shouldn&#39;t we have allowed Iraq to take possession of kuwait?  What is Kuwait but some Royal Scam.  It is a Make Believe Country made up from Nothing during the Damned Treaty of Versailles after the First War.  Why the hell should any Arab or Turk look upon any of those borders as Real.  What gives Englishmen and Frenchmen the right?  War.  Well what War can take away, then War can take back. 

But George Bush Sr.... who knows what he had promised Saddam when he was CIA Director.  For all we know, he may have promised Saddam all of Saudi Arabia too.  Remember, Old Bush never imagined he would ever become President.  He never thought that far ahead.  But Old Bush -- all his Family Money was tied up in Arabian Oil.  And so he needed a War to buffer Saddam away from Arabia. 

But once the Arabian border was secure.  Bush backed off.  He knew that Saddam&#39;s Secular Regime was the BEST POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT for Iraq.  That it offered stability. 

I often wonder why Clinton didn&#39;t lighten up and bring Saddam back into the good graces of America.  Perhaps it was because Clinton has to appease all thos Assholes on the Religious Conservative Right who absolutely insisted that America make every Non-Jew in the World some enemy of the state.  Clinton could never ignore a political poll, and American&#39;s loved to hate Saddam Hussein, no matter how good he was. 

yes, I would bring back Saddam and the whole Bathist Party, and give them 200 Billion Dollars, while signing over every piece of American Military Hardware in the Country.  he would be able to reestablish Order, and he would bring back Secular Government.  That is what we want, isn&#39;t it?  So why the hell are we now supporting a Government of Sunni and Shia Fundamentalists?

We made enemies of our Real Friends, and made Friends of all our Real Enemies.

And most stupid idiot retarded asshole conservatives jerkoffs don&#39;t know the difference. 

You guys just want blood and don&#39;t care who does the bleeding.

----------


## Kaniaz

> Isn&#39;t saying that ad hominems? [/b]



Can be, but I figure only if I say "You&#39;re a dumbass for using ad hominems" (and the rest of your argument doesn&#39;t mean crap).  :tongue2: 





> kaniaz, why cant everyone on earth be like you?
> 
> You should be PRIME MINISTER&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#  33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;[/b]



I agree completely. Except being the Prime Minister means you have to be this 50something guy who has no interest in improving anything except his bottom line. (Only kidding. I don&#39;t think he&#39;s corrupt, but I had fun writing &#39;bottom&#39 :wink2: .

*EDIT:* Either Leo types really fast or has been there for about an hour, &#39;cause his post so wasn&#39;t there when I replied.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

our soldiers are out there because they were ordered to. When you are in the military you are military property. Not following orders results in charges of insubordination and prison time. They do so because they are told, not because war is honorable

----------


## Secret Neo

There were only two wars worth fighting, WW2 and the war on terror (in AFGANISTAN&#33 :wink2: . Thats it. The rest were pointless, especially Iraq. Yay&#33; u got saddam&#33;, so just get the fuck outta there then&#33; Actaully, the only pointless war not started by Americans was WW1. So think bout the rest. And Americans are so gunhappy that they started a war with THEMSELVES&#33;

----------


## NeAvO

> our soldiers are out there because they were ordered to. When you are in the military you are military property. Not following orders results in charges of insubordination and prison time. They do so because they are told, not because war is honorable
> [/b]



No I mean why are they still being sent there, is there a point in them being ordered to stay over there?

----------


## badassbob

> No I mean why are they still being sent there, is there a point in them being ordered to stay over there?
> [/b]



You mean why are there still soldiers in Iraq?

They are there in a feeble attempt to keep the peace. There are suicide bombers still, and US and British soldiers are attacked regularly by the al qaeda. They are attempting to stop all hell from breaking loose so that Iraqs government can rebuild their country.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Alright, lets see......

REBUILDING A COUNTRY TAKES TIME JACKASSES. If we left now there would be a civil war, and even more people would die. 

Liberals are gonna come one here and say, there would be no furture civil war if we never attacked. No, there would be a crazy dictator with a nuclear bomb.

Now the liberals would say "they never found any nuclear bombs, waaaaaa, waaaaaaaaa". No, but we found uranium, a necessity for nukes. But no,no let me guess, he wasnt using them for nuclear bombs to kill people. Why would sadam do that? He was actually using it to power a flux capacitor for his time machine made out of a Dolorian so he could go back in time to win the first Gulf War&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#  33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

So, what do you think the uranium was being used for. Leo, i await your response

----------


## Gwendolyn

> There were only two wars worth fighting, WW2 and the war on terror (in AFGANISTAN&#33. Thats it. 
> [/b]



The war on &#39;terror&#39; in Afganistan? The war on terror is a joke. Anytime anyone declares war on an idea, it isn&#39;t worth fighting, and it is a way to take America&#39;s attention away from the fucked up things that are happening involving our Government. At no point are we going to say, "That&#39;s it&#33; We&#39;ve got em&#39; all guys&#33;". It&#39;s just like the war on drugs....It&#39;s just not a worthy or practical cause.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Alright, this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
This should please liberals enough to shut them up.

Iraq was an example. We chose them to show the world what happens when our country gets attacked. The terrorists meant to bring our counrty to our knees, when in fact they just sckrewed themselves. They brought destruction upon their organizations.

Now the part that libs wont like,

We have to make a point that when 3000 american civilians die, 30,000 enemy civilians must die. If we keep this campaign of total destruction, no middle eastern terrorist will ever attack again. He will know that it will bring death to his family and countrymen.

We have to make the idea of attacking americans so horrifying that it will cease to exist. Otherwise, our country WILL be brought to its knees.

Why dont you just cut off your balls and send it to the terrorist with a little not attached to it saying "You win". They want to make us scared. Dont be afraid, be relentless. I dont know about you, but i value the life of an american over the life of an Iraqi

Thats called patriotism.

----------


## Gwendolyn

> Thats called patriotism.
> [/b]




That&#39;s called facism.  Lives are all the fucking same. You are not more important than any other life form, and being self important is not called patriotism. It&#39;s called being self righteous.

----------


## DyerMaker

> Alright, this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
> This should please liberals enough to shut them up.
> 
> Iraq was an example. We chose them to show the world what happens when our country gets attacked. The terrorists meant to bring our counrty to our knees, when in fact they just sckrewed themselves. They brought destruction upon their organizations.
> 
> Now the part that libs wont like,
> 
> We have to make a point that when 3000 american civilians die, 30,000 enemy civilians must die. If we keep this campaign of total destruction, no middle eastern terrorist will ever attack again. He will know that it will bring death to his family and countrymen.
> 
> ...



No, I believe that&#39;s called shallow thinking. What a ridiculous thing to say that you value one life over another just because of where he is born. I bet you value a fellow life of the same ethnicity over someone with a different skin tone. The loyal supporters of Bush seem to lack any kind of perspective or critical thinking. Do you value the lives of the Americans who capture * suspected* terrorists, abuse them and dehumanize them. That&#39;s exactly what you are doing when you value a life over another without ever meeting either, dehumanizing a nation. I believe that&#39;s how Hitler got to kill six million jews, people with disabilites, and homosexuals; Saying they do not compare to a blonde haired, blue eyed person.

Do you honestly think as long as we are there that the violence will ever stop? You underestimate the human spirit who will die fighting for what they believe in. The Iraqis believe we don&#39;t belong there telling them how to run their nation and who to be allied with. Do you not think that the Iraqi insurgents aren&#39;t saying the same thing about making it a horrifying thing to just sweep across a islamic nation with a whole lot of military might?

For us to be brought to our knees something has to be attacking us _here._ And the Iraqi civilians that are dieing the most aren&#39;t the enemies. They&#39;re just people trying to carry out their lives like use to be able to.

----------


## shark!

> (Hominus Feralis @ Sep 3 2006, 10:16 PM) 
> 
> Alright, this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
> This should please liberals enough to shut them up.
> 
> Iraq was an example. We chose them to show the world what happens when our country gets attacked. The terrorists meant to bring our counrty to our knees, when in fact they just sckrewed themselves. They brought destruction upon their organizations.
> 
> Now the part that libs wont like,
> 
> ...



...I can&#39;t even Fathom how many generations of backwoods KKK imbreding it took to come up with this idea for foreign policy.  

...btw you talk far worse then Usama bin Laden, he only wanted revenge on sept.11.  You want genocide if that&#39;s what it takes...and that is the stupidist thing I have ever read on this forum. ( I don&#39;t even think I have to realy explain why more then that?) ...and I spend the majority of my time in senseless banter.

btw i&#39;m curious, how many american&#39;s do you think agree with his argument?

----------


## Hominus Feralis

haaaaaaaaaaaaa, HAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAA
I was just playin about the killing of 30,000 people

and yea, im from Gerogia. But the kkk sucks ass. But i am imbred  ::bigteeth::  

EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD AGREE. 
otherwise, you can just geeeeeet out.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> We chose them to show the world what happens when our country gets attacked. The terrorists meant to bring our counrty to our knees, when in fact they just sckrewed themselves. They brought destruction upon their organizations.
> 
> Now the part that libs wont like,
> 
> We have to make a point that when 3000 american civilians die, 30,000 enemy civilians must die. If we keep this campaign of total destruction, no middle eastern terrorist will ever attack again. He will know that it will bring death to his family and countrymen.
> 
> We have to make the idea of attacking americans so horrifying that it will cease to exist.
> [/b]



.....I can&#39;t even believe I just read that.


The terrorists knew our country would not get brought to its knees by this, or any other similar attack in the future. To even suggest this is to declare that you have absolutely no intelligence on the terrorists we&#39;re fighting. There are f&#39;ckin _suicide bombers_ out there, man. Do you not think they _know_ that death comes to their family and countrymen?
Think.
They are killing _themselves_ as offensive weapons. Do you think this is some rag-tag club of rebels that one day decided to start a clan and it spread to a few houses down the block? This is an ideology that is as imbeded in their culture as Christianity is in that of many americans. Do you think you&#39;re going to abolish that with a military operation? Do you think anything we do in Iraq, in "retaliation" for 9/11, is going to prevent another one, down the road? You think you&#39;re going to _scare_ a way of life out of a _large_ culture of people, that are already killing themselves, willingly, for their cause? If you do, explain your logic.

----------


## Leo Volont

Why not just SURRENDER to the Terrorists.

What do they want?

They want U.S. Forces out of Arabia.  Fine.  We can do that.

They want the U.S. to stop shipping Arms to Israel and underwriting its War Budget.  Fine.  We can do that. 

I don&#39;t see the problem

The NAZIs surrendered and look, now, they&#39;re happy. 

The Italian and the Japanese Fascists surrendered and now they couldn&#39;t be happier. 

So maybe Americans should think about being Happy.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> Yes, I know all about it. 
> 
> You see, I&#39;m educated. 
> 
> What we had under Saddam Hussein was a Secular Government that was suppressing the revolutionary tendencies of both the Sunni Fundamental Sects and the Shia Fundamentalist Sects.  Also Iraq&#39;s secular government was managing the Kurdish Revolutionaries in the North who wanted to tear Iraq apart to create an independent Kurdestan -- just so their own fat cats could have their own tyrany.  And the Saddam Government was able to do this, to maintain Peace and Order with relatively little duress or bloodshed, when compared to how much Blood and Duress the Americans have been using without the leanest fraction of the success that Saddam had with his regime. 
> 
> You see, what all too many idiots forget is that Saddam was once handpicked by the CIA simply because he was the best man for the job.  A Secularist.  for 8 years Saddam fought against Iran, as America&#39;s Surrogate. 
> 
> he took Kuwait because he thought that after spending 1,000,000 Iraqi Lives for a War waged entirely for American Self Interests, that he deserved it.  That Iraq deserved it. 
> ...



Leo.

For once, and to my own suprise, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with you.

A few comments of my own:

Socially and politically, it can perhaps be said that Iraq, and perhaps other nations in the middle east, are hundreds of years behind (some) western nations.  Invading those countries and forcibly imposing modern, and more importantly, WESTERN political and social ideals such as "democracy" and "freedom" (Neither of which, ironically, America is itself a true example of), is inappropriate and is likely to lead to the exact kind of turmoil as is occurring in present-day Iraq.  And evern more harmful will be the more long-term impact of America&#39;s presence in the middle east... although the effects of this are yet to be seen.

Saddam Hussein MAY have been an opressive autocrat.  But, as Leo suggested, perhaps that is exactly what Iraq needed, and still needs?

----------


## Leo Volont

> Socially and politically, it can perhaps be said that Iraq, and perhaps other nations in the middle east, are hundreds of years behind (some) western nations.  
> [/b]



Well, the problem there is that Saddam had been making so much progress in pushing forward Western Secular Values.  Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a virtual Little America.  And that is why it is so profoundly disturbing that America destroyed all of that -- first with the Sanctions that crippled the American-Like Middle Classes of Iraq, and then with the Invasion and the turning out of Power of every person who had once seen Secular Westernism as a Positive Value.  The Bathists were Pro-American, until America turned against them. 

We did the same to Iran 30 years ago.  The Shah of Iran was maintaining a Secular Westernized Nation, and Jimmy Carter just had to make the Shah an Enemy, and so Iran was handed over to the Fundamentalists on a silver Platter. 

America needs a Professional Foreign Service, and needs to stop trusting its Policies to these idiot Politicans that they come up with.

----------


## Etrain

Mr. Feralis, 

Upon logging into my account for the first time in months, I&#39;ve naturally been browsing the forums. In this short period of time, I&#39;ve come across several posts which have caught my attention, almost all of which were written by none other than yourself. The sheer ignorance in your comments actually baffles me. At first, I wasn&#39;t sure whether or not you were joking, but shortly thereafter after ascertained that you spoke in complete seriousness. I suggest you get off of the computer and go read a book; knowledge is a virtue. Please refrain from verballly lashing out at those individuals _guilty_ of possessing different political views than your own.

"An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."   -Mahatma Gandhi

----------


## Hominus Feralis

thank you etrain, its great to finally get the respect i deserve&#33;&#33;&#33;

i just point out when people, like leo, make dumb and ignorant statements themselves. 

I fight fire with fire.

Wow, now that im reading your posts (everyone) i see everyone here is a hippy.

Leo wants to surrender to the terrorists. Fine, let him.

Listen, most the shit i say IS a joke, like killing your enemy ten fold.

What do you suggest we did. Let them attack us (9/11) and THEN withdraw all troops from the area as well as cutting off Israel? 

Now thats cut and run from the get-go. And thats the pussiest shit i have ever heard

I never said what we did was right. We got ouselves in a ditch with this Iraq thing because of bad judjment and misguided intel. But now that we are there, we have to finish it out. We gotta get out of the ditch we dug by staying until Iraq is peaceful, even at the cost of more lives

----------


## nina

Your problem is that you can&#39;t see where Leo is actually correct about the situation.





> Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago&#39;s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don&#39;t want the truth because deep down in places you don&#39;t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don&#39;t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
> [/b]



Wow...yeah...quote a MOVIE to get your point across. Hmm...strange...

And BTW...doesn&#39;t he go to jail in the end? Uh yeah.

----------


## Kaniaz

Gandhi has been arrested too, you know.

----------


## nina

Your point?

----------


## wombing

if i may deign to speak for kaniaz, i believe he was trying to point out that being imprisoned does not neccessarily cast one in the light of a true criminal or fiend.

  though i have no idea which movie was quoted, or how the events unfolded within it.

  whichever "marine" is speaking sounds like an ass though   ::wink::

----------


## Amethyst Star

I don&#39;t know about you guys, but my brother is going back there in January (I think).  He&#39;s being stop-lossed (if I remember the term correctly), as he is supposed to be out of the Army in February.  He&#39;s going back with a unit as the only person who&#39;s been over there.  He hasn&#39;t been promoted since he joined the Army.

I don&#39;t know whether he feels the war is justified, and I don&#39;t know one way or the other.  However, whether or not you support or disapprove of what&#39;s going on, support the troops.  I didn&#39;t take the time to read all of the posts because it&#39;s the same rhetoric all over again, but if you want to do something, support the troops.  If you don&#39;t know how, it&#39;s not necessarily carrying around signs that say, "Bring the troops home&#33;" or "Bush sucks&#33;" or the like.  Send a letter to a unit that may have been deployed from your area and tell them that they have your support.  If you want, send a care package or there are organizations that you can donate to who will send care packages to soldiers.  Do something other than sit around and bicker.

I&#39;d appreciate it and I know my brother would, too.

----------


## Kaniaz

> if i may deign to speak for kaniaz, i believe he was trying to point out that being imprisoned does not neccessarily cast one in the light of a true criminal or fiend.[/b]



Right on the money.  :tongue2:

----------


## shark!

Amethyst, just ignore this post please&#33;

...I can hardly tell the difference between so called "marines" and "terrorists".  I hear of massacres by the "american liberators" . 
One person&#39;s Freedom Fighter is another&#39;s Terrorist.  I hear of torture by marines and prison guards.  What&#39;s the civilian death count? 10s of thousands...just by u.s. soldiers.  The terrorists that crashed into wtc didn&#39;t even kill as many as these fucking american pawns we call "soldiers" or "liberators".

Jihadists are trained to kill. marines are trained to kill.  They may be nice guys...but they were the ones that signed up...they knew they would be the governments bitch.  And they agreed to kill whoever the government points them at.

Why would someone join the army and be this admin.&#39;s bitch?? maybe they were tricked by propganda like "patriotism" or "liberty and freedom".  Maybe they "sold their soul" and agreed to kill for the government for money and a college education? maybe they&#39;re hillbillys and just wanna shoot them some "towel-heads"? I don&#39;t know...but from one perspective they  look a lot like terrorists themselves.  

I usually only support people if I agree with their actions...why would I support us troops?..."aww little Amad will never walk or see his family again...but those troops&#33; godbless them&#33;,  they were _so well-intentioned_ &#33;, I still fully support them...   ::bowdown::  "...?

...you&#39;ve gotta ask yourselves how many deaths is it worth?


(btw I&#39;m guessing I&#39;m gonna catch a little shit from being this harsh...)

----------


## Hominus Feralis

keep in mind 2 things shark

1. You dont know anything about the war in Iraq and neither do i. dont make statements about massacres when you do not know it for sure. And yea, any battle we fight will be a massacre. Thats how much ass our military kicks.

2. The actions of a few soldiers does not dictate the actions of the entire military. Just because torture has happened in the past doesnt mean every soldier does it. 

How dare you condem the troops. Condem bush, the commander in cheif. He gives the orders. These soldiers risk life and limb EVERY SINGLE DAY because they are told to. Do you ever fear for your life. Have you ever been shot at? These people go through that every day and there are still people like you who enjoy the easy life and still act like you know something about world politics.

Condem bush, not those who die. I suggest you read howetzer&#39;s post that has a quote from a movie or something.

People like me realize that our soldiers do not deserve reprimand by people like you.

You live the easy, free life. Imagine the life of soldiers of every nationl

Although it may sound unpatriotic, i honor troops from every nation. You cannot blame the common soldeir in WW2 for the war, just as i cannot blame Al-Qaida. I would rather honor a common enemy soldier than you any day.

----------


## shark!

> 1. You dont know anything about the war in Iraq and neither do i. dont make statements about massacres when you do not know it for sure. And yea, any battle we fight will be a massacre. Thats how much ass our military kicks.[/b]



...damn that was a fast contradiction.  it is possible to know about the war btw...





> 2. The actions of a few soldiers does not dictate the actions of the entire military. Just because torture has happened in the past doesnt mean every soldier does it. [/b]




yes&#33; a few fuck ups(maybe idk 12 guys or something) killed 10 000s of civilians...you are right.     (btw I meant torture and civilian causualties in the point...)  

Fine there probably are some marines that are...idk "ok" as generalizations arn&#39;t usually entirely correct.


...and yes I did read that quote from the movie...1. It is from a movie and 2. yes I also laughed at it.

----------


## badassbob

> ...I can hardly tell the difference between so called "marines" and "terrorists".  I hear of massacres by the "american liberators" . 
> [/b]



Really? Terrorists attempt to get their way by scaring people with explosions in very public places. Marines work for the US government which is trying very hard to aid the rebuilding of Iraq, and the stabablising of its government.

To me that&#39;s a huge difference. These people are risking their lives to help another country, I think they deserve a bit more gratitude than that.

Maybe there are massacres, but you can&#39;t say that every single enlisted marine is guilty. Also, what do we know sat watching the news in the Western world. We only know what the media feels like telling us.

----------


## shark!

> Marines work for the US government which is trying very hard to aid the rebuilding of Iraq, and the stabablising of its government.[/b]




...btw who the fuck do you think destroyed Iraq so it had to be rebuilt?  Who is the reason the government is not stable?

they are risking their lives to save another country...and doing a great job at it...



(yah i thought the debate was getting a little boring and decided to stir things up a little...and I know im going right at the troops...you could even call it the war on terrorism  :wink2: )

----------


## badassbob

And who the fuck threatened the US government with nuclear warheads that didn&#39;t exist. Who brought the whole shitty mess upon their own country. That&#39;s right Saddam Hussein.

Don&#39;t blame the US government for responding to threats of having their country destroyed. They were hardly going to sit and watch. Hussein is the problem, not the US government, he was warned.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

badassbob i like you (hold on there, i aint gay)

For real man, you laid out the truth.

Sadam did boast that he had nukes, and i do believe he did. They had uranium. 
Im just glad England decided to support up at some level.

The UK sent some troops, right?

The truth is Sadam would not submit to searches of certain bunkers, so we had to take action.

Tell me, shark, what do you think he was hiding down there. Hmm.

SADAM LIKED DOLLS AND HE DIDNT WANT US TO FIND OUT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> And who the fuck threatened the US government with nuclear warheads that didn&#39;t exist. Who brought the whole shitty mess upon their own country. That&#39;s right Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Don&#39;t blame the US government for responding to threats of having their country destroyed. They were hardly going to sit and watch. Hussein is the problem, not the US government, he was warned.
> [/b]



I suggest you stop blindly believing the propaganda puked up by the government and your media, and do some of your own f%&&#036;ing reading.

Saddam Hussein DIDN&#39;T threaten the US with nuclear warheads.  EVER.  Furthermore, he simply has NOTHING to gain by doing so.  He MAY be "evil", but, he&#39;s not an idiot.  By threatening America, he has everything to lose and nothing to gain.  Just use your head.

The US made a number of accusations that he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction.  Saddamn Hussein made NO threats whatsoever.  Saddam even complied (albeit grudgingly) with UN weapons inspectors.  DESPITE this, the US continued to make TOTALLY UNFOUNDED accusations.  Furthermore, the US used the fact that the weapons inspectors hadn&#39;t found anything, as EVIDENCE that Iraq was HIDING its weapons.

Iraq was not ever a threat to the USA.

----------


## badassbob

I never said that hussein actually threatened the US. I&#39;m saying that Hussein was believed to have access to nuclear warheds, and the US felt threatened by that. Hussein was never willing to be cooperative and let US and British forces carry out their search to find out if he did have weapons of mass destruction. He fought back. Therefore, it&#39;s his own fault that his country was destroyed, if he had cooperated, there would never have needed to be any conflict.





> The US made a number of accusations that he was harbouring weapons of mass destruction. Saddamn Hussein made NO threats whatsoever. Saddam even complied (albeit grudgingly) with UN weapons inspectors. DESPITE this, the US continued to make TOTALLY UNFOUNDED accusations. Furthermore, the US used the fact that the weapons inspectors hadn&#39;t found anything, as EVIDENCE that Iraq was HIDING its weapons.[/b]



That&#39;s a pretty stupid way to look at things. Do you honestly believe that the US would go to war even if they had reason believe that there was no nuclear weapons?

----------


## Hominus Feralis

The blue meanine, YOU need to do some reading

1. Sadam refused to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers. What do you think he was hiding?

2. The media has constantly said things CONTRARY to what the gov. said.

Read, read read

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> That&#39;s a pretty stupid way to look at things. Do you honestly believe that the US would go to war even if they had reason believe that there was no nuclear weapons?
> [/b]



YES, I HONESTLY DO&#33;

As do a LARGE proportion of people, both inside the US and in other countries.

The purpose of the war on Iraq was NOT to eliminate any threat to America, because their wasn&#39;t one.  The purpose was to demonstrate American military might, assert power and influence over the middle east and other countries, secure access to oil supplies, etc.  The "WMD&#39;s" and the "Free the Iraqis" were just justifications manufactured to ensure the support of the American populace.  Wake the fuck up&#33;





> The blue meanine, YOU need to do some reading
> 
> 1. Sadam refused to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers. What do you think he was hiding?
> [/b]



Anti-infantry biological weapons, secret prisons and torture facilities, political prisoners, archives of his various arms dealings... who gives a shit?&#33;  Iraw did not have ANY weapons off mass destruction capable of being a threat to the US.  Like I said, Iraq has NOTHING to gain by attacking the US.  NOTHING.

Saddam may have been concealing other things of a seriously dodgy and covert nature, but then again, how much do you want to bet that other governments, the US included, are concealing similar such secrets?

Also, since the War, and DURING it, no evidence was found WHATSOEVER of any weapons of mass destruction.  Because of the speed of the American attack, and Iraq&#39;s unpreparedness, AND the Irai army&#39;s disorganisation, IF there HAD have been any WMD&#39;s, America would have foudn them... or at least EVIDENCE of them.  They didn&#39;t.






> 2. The media has constantly said things CONTRARY to what the gov. said.
> [/b]



Of course they have.  I&#39;m not saying the media is a complete mouthpiece of the US governemnt.  BUT the media is certainly HEAVILY biased in the US, and often regurgitates a lot of the bullshit put out there by the US government.  Bullshit which, unfortunately, you two seem to be spooning up gleefully.

----------


## shark!

First you claim:




> And who the fuck threatened the US government with nuclear warheads that didn&#39;t exist. Who brought the whole shitty mess upon their own country. That&#39;s right Saddam Hussein.
> 
> Don&#39;t blame the US government for responding to threats of having their country destroyed. They were hardly going to sit and watch. Hussein is the problem, not the US government, he was warned.
> [/b]



and then...





> I never said that hussein actually threatened the US. I&#39;m saying that Hussein was believed to have access to nuclear warheds, and the US felt threatened by that. Hussein was never willing to be cooperative and let US and British forces carry out their search to find out if he did have weapons of mass destruction. He fought back. Therefore, it&#39;s his own fault that his country was destroyed, if he had cooperated, there would never have needed to be any conflict.
> [/b]



wait?? wtf? 



btw didn&#39;t any of you read Leo&#39;s short post about the history of iraq and america?  Yes thankyou for your reply blue meanie what you say is too true&#33;






> That&#39;s a pretty stupid way to look at things. Do you honestly believe that the US would go to war even if they had reason believe that there was no nuclear weapons?[/b]



hey badassbob...now you are on to something...do you think they would go to war even if there were no nuclear weapons? how much do you trust their government..?

----------


## Howie

> Your point?
> [/b]




The point is that it&#39;s message portrays a far deeper understanding and meaning than you are able to comprehend at this point. 
Sorry&#33;
Just like Hollywood would portraits events much like the media as you would like to believe.
Sadly, this one quote encompasses much more than the majority realizes.

----------


## badassbob

Alright, ~~&#092;o/~~~~~/&#092;~~~~shark&#33;, the US was threatened by the weapons of mass destruction, and this was caused by Hussein not letting the UN search all over Iraq.

Saddam threatened the US by restricting their search, though he did not verbally threaten them, it was still a threat. That was what I meant.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Exactly, Howetzer.

This form of global politics and war is far beyond the comprehension level of any common citizen, even the great, powerful, and all knowing Hominus  ::bigteeth::  

There are SO many angles and forms of info. that go into a governmental formula to make a decision. All any of us know is what we see on the news.

For all any of you know Sadam could have made specific threats against america, but the gov. wouldnt let is be released to the news because of the possible panic effect.

The government hides and distorts information and for any common citizen to think they know all the facts is ignorant.

The blue meanie,
How do you know Iraq never threatened us. It is easy for us to look into our own little world and take what official news channels say as fact. You are not part of the inner government and you have no idea what Iraq did or didnt do.

I rest my case

----------


## shark!

> Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago&#39;s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don&#39;t want the truth because deep down in places you don&#39;t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don&#39;t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.[/b]







> The point is that it&#39;s message portrays a far deeper understanding and meaning than you are able to comprehend at this point. 
> Sorry&#33;
> Just like Hollywood would portraits events much like the media as you would like to believe.
> Sadly, this one quote encompasses much more than the majority realizes.
> [/b]



honestly all I read in this quote is propoganda...and "We Need The Army The Army is great and we should never question it"...which maybe I can&#39;t comprehend...or its just stupid...one or the other.  Maybe we should question what soldiers do?  Are they trying to hide something? is that why the man doesn&#39;t want what he does questioned?  If I was doing a good job playing defense of america I wouldn&#39;t mind a little questioning?  On the other hand if what I was doing was very sketchy(I&#39;d invoke "patriotism" and "fear" to keep anyone trying to question me under my control.) I&#39;d prolly say something exactly like this to do just that:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. I am Amazing&#33;(Yah you need me) You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury Because I am so good at killing people in other countries. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, So pity and respect me&#33; That Santiago&#39;s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, cause you are an idiot and I like to be condescending, saves lives. You don&#39;t want the truth "((wait we don&#39;t want the truth since when?))" because deep down in places you don&#39;t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, YOU NEED ME ON THE WALL YOU NEED THE Army&#33; We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of A LIFE spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I am very important as you now know and have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don&#39;t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.  AND Must importantly give large percentages of tax dollars to what we do.  If you question my greatness...you will die



  Certainly this quote doesn&#39;t refer to Vietnam or Iraq?  Maybe WW2? is it about WW2? btw you are a soldier or someting right Howetzer?



edit: on the other hand...maybe the sad truth is america has made far too many enemies?? maybe they should keep building "the wall" higher and higher.  THey maybe Should do this...although isolated in their wall...I can see america still falling from the inside.

so maybe they need some sort of bridges to other places? instead of a wall? no more enemies? am I being stupid, ideological, utopian and unrealistic when I suggest that though???

----------


## DyerMaker

> Exactly, Howetzer.
> 
> This form of global politics and war is far beyond the comprehension level of any common citizen, even the great, powerful, and all knowing Hominus  
> 
> There are SO many angles and forms of info. that go into a governmental formula to make a decision. All any of us know is what we see on the news.
> 
> For all any of you know Sadam could have made specific threats against america, but the gov. wouldnt let is be released to the news because of the possible panic effect.
> 
> The government hides and distorts information and for any common citizen to think they know all the facts is ignorant.
> ...



Case not rested, after all the criticism the government and bush have faced(i.e. congressional hearings, bush&#39;s extremely low appoval rating)  don&#39;t you think they would&#39;ve come out with the fact that hussein really had threatened them? 

We all know the press loves to do some fear mongering, it&#39;s what keeps the viewers watching and the ratings up. They of course automatically assume the worse, which is why even the press made it seem like there were WMDs but fortunately for them people have very short term memories. They jump from side to side. Right after 9/11 when Bush started all these wars they were portraying him as some kind of cowboy hero.





> The government hides and distorts information and for any common citizen to think they know all the facts is ignorant.[/b]



For a _ patriot_ you sure don&#39;t believe you&#39;re government is forthright and truthful.

----------


## Amethyst Star

And again, it&#39;s the same rhetoric.  *glosses over it*

I don&#39;t think any of us know the whole truth; each of us has bits and pieces from which we have formulated our opinions on whether or not the war is justified.  The truth right now is that our troops are over there and they&#39;re trying to help Iraq, mainly in aiding them in establishing a system that will prevent terrorist organizations from stepping in when we withdraw our troops.  You know that that&#39;s what they&#39;re waiting for, right?

And shark, be _very_ careful when making generalizations like that.  Those people that may have been torturing civilians are few and far between.  As far as dropping bombs, the US military is hardly _the_ guilty party.  How often do you hear about suicide bombers?  Frequently.  Also, imagine this if you would because this really happens.  As a soldier in  Iraq, a soldier has to be careful when letting a child approach him.  Why?  Because he/she could be carrying a bomb and was told to detonate it near a group of soldiers.  If the child keeps approaching, would you be able to shoot him/her in order to save your own life and the life of those around you?

_Then_ ask: who are the terrorists?

Just some more stuff to chew on.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> I don&#39;t think any of us know the whole truth; each of us has bits and pieces from which we have formulated our opinions on whether or not the war is justified.  The truth right now is that our troops are over there and they&#39;re trying to help Iraq, mainly in aiding them in establishing a system that will prevent terrorist organizations from stepping in when we withdraw our troops.  You know that that&#39;s what they&#39;re waiting for, right?
> [/b]



This is EXACTLY the POINT.

Before the US invaded, they already HAD a strong, stable government in Iraq that was NOT a fundamentalist or terrorist regime.  Saddam Hussein may have been an oppressive dictator, but, he was a damned GOOD oppresive dictator.  Iraq under Saddam was NO threat to the US.

Not only is there NO EVIDENCE to show that Iraq was no threat to the US, but common sense points to the contrary.  Iraq had NOTHING to gain.  Saddam in particular.

Amé, saying that none of us know the whole truth, in my opinion, is just a weak cop-out.

If we were to adopt the SAME ATTITUDE to other situations of questionable government acts - if we are to say "Well, we don&#39;t know the full facts, maybe the government WAS right"... this is a VERY DANGEROUS thing to do.  If we are to do this, it gives governments almost free reign to do whatever they like regardless of public opinion.

----------


## Amethyst Star

How do you define a terrorist?  (not "How does Oxford define..." or "How does *random* define...")

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> How do you define a terrorist?  (not "How does Oxford define..." or "How does *random* define...")
> [/b]



I would define "terrorISM" as a form of warfare consisting of attacks on (usually) civilian targets, the purpose of which is to have a psychological effect on the civilian populace of another country.  Attacks on civilian targets which are primarily intended to weaken the productive or economic capacity of a country, or have other material aims, I would not classify as terrorism.

A terrorist I would define as a person or body of persons that undertakes, or threatens to undertake, a war of terrorism as defined above.

What&#39;s your point, Amé?

----------


## Tsen

Apparently some of you are very ill informed.  Specifically, I&#39;m looking at the starter of this thread.

One:  Iraq never had nukes.  Period.  No question about it.  We knew they had biological and chemical weapons--they used them on their own citizens.  But they never had nukes.  They&#39;d tried, sure.  But they never had them.  To the person who mentioned that we found Uranium in Iraq.  To start with, I&#39;d like to hear your source--I hadn&#39;t heard that.  Either way, having Uranium and having a bomb are very different.  Japan has a good deal of nuclear material, but no bombs whatsoever--they&#39;re one of the biggest anti-nuke activists in the world.  Back to the point, Iraq didn&#39;t have the technical know-how or the level of required equipment to produce a bomb.  Isn&#39;t a cakewalk.  Iran, who&#39;s producing Uranium large-scale at the moment still won&#39;t have enough materials to produce a bomb for about ten years.  Iraq was quite a ways behind that.

Two:  Terrorism didn&#39;t hit Iraq until AFTER we invaded.  So to all those who say "better to fight them there than here", not so.  Terrorists were in the Middle East--no denying that.  But Iraq had almost no terrorist activity until AFTER we invaded.  Iran had its share of terrorists, as does most of the surrounding nations.  But Iraq was more or less a hole in terrorist networks--largely because they feared punishment under Saddam.  You see, when we sent troops into Iraq, we created a handy-dandy martyr-factory.  Whether they&#39;re right or wrong, a good deal of Iraqis viewed incoming American troops as invaders and occupiers, not liberators and freedom fighters.  If you think that most Iraqis are glad we removed Saddam-fine.  I disagree, but even if you think most Iraqis are glad to have us there, you can&#39;t deny that there are a few who want us out--even if they&#39;re the minority.
Then Al Queda saw all these disgruntled citizens, salted them liberally with religious extremism, then trained themselves up some new recruits.  Now, every time a terrorist wraps himself in explosives and ball bearings, screaming "Allah Akbar&#33;", the terrorists get a new martyr, a new rolemodel.    There will continue to be terrorists there for a good long time, longer if we stay there.  As Gwen said earlier--it&#39;s idiotic to fight an idea.

Three:  If we really, really had to overthrow Saddam (which we didn&#39;t), we could&#39;ve done it much more effectively.  As somebody pointed out, our troops kick ass.  The problem is, they&#39;re kicking an imaginary ass.  We can kill all the terrorists we want.  With brute force, massive numbers of soldiers patrolling down Iraqi streets, we can round up a lot of terrorists.  For every one of our troops killed, we&#39;re killing many, many more terrorists.  But we&#39;re still running that martyr-factory.  More terrorists will come, and more will be recruited.  Meanwhile, we&#39;re killing many innocent civilians by accident.  I don&#39;t blame the troops--they&#39;ve got to make split second decisions or die.  The problem is that their orders are idiotic.
Did you know America has specially trained troops for overthrowing governments?  The Special Forces were designed exactly for that purpose.  They covertly enter the country in groups of three, rally guerrilla opposition to the existing regime, train, arm and recruit more guerillas, then set them loose.  Thus the overthrowing of the government is done by the people of the country, and the resulting government is much more stable.  
The only downside is that such a forced regime change doesn&#39;t give us much of a chance for a share in the glory--the Special Forces are covert and don&#39;t actively proclaim American support.  When the government is overthrown, America wouldn&#39;t get the credit (though those in the intelligence business will probably know what happened).  So it&#39;s bad press:  America doesn&#39;t get the chance to dash in all cavalier and duel the opponent to the death. 
So why didn&#39;t we use Special Forces in Iraq?  They could&#39;ve done the job more efficiently, putting a more stable government into play, they could&#39;ve done it with far fewer US Military casualties.  Why not?  Publicity.

Four:  Our President isn&#39;t some god.  Unlike what earlier posters have suggested, the government knows far less than many people give them credit for.  They aren&#39;t superhuman, they&#39;re just people like you or me.  Bush isn&#39;t smarter than the vast majority of the nation (Obviously).  He&#39;s actually pretty average, maybe a little lower.  He doesn&#39;t have better information, either, for the most part.  The CIA is a great intelligence agency.  Top in the world.  But it has limits--CNN usually will give you the important bits before the CIA can get a brief to the president.  Occasionally the CIA picks up some sensitive information from a foreign government, but that&#39;s not an everyday occurance, and usually you&#39;ll find out the same information a week or two later on the nightly news.  Thus, we have a normal man with average information.  Perhaps he pays more attention to the news he recieves, but it isn&#39;t that he recieves so much more, its that he has to know about all the important issues, so he pays attention to it all.
Don&#39;t worship government.  Recipe for disaster, there.

Five:  Intelligence and covert operations, aided by precision strikes are so much more effective than brute force.  The War on Terror is a joke--we&#39;re more at risk now than before.  First off, the terror threat level.  The term &#39;idiotic&#39; comes to mind.  Do you check the terror threat level?  If you do, what do you do about it?  Do you think to yourself, "Hey, today&#39;s an orange terror threat day, better pack the Glock to work in case I see some Islamo-fascists (TM, George Bush) in skimasks."
No, you don&#39;t.  Because there&#39;s little practical action you can take if you hear the terror threat is higher.
But a terrorist has only to get online for twenty seconds to see a nice, color-coded readout of the general level of awareness of airport security and US anti-terror operatives.  Handy, eh?  All they have to do is wait for the threat level to go down to be granted a much higher chance of success.
Next, sending troops into Iraq was a waste of resources.  Monetarilly, it costs us billions, even trillions.  We&#39;ve also lost over 2,000 soldiers.  For what?  We haven&#39;t reduced terror.  We haven&#39;t made America safer.
If we want to fight terrorism, why not increase funding to the NSA and CIA?  They&#39;re our ticket to success--they can aid in making precision strikes against terrorists, without wasting manpower or giving the enemy a blatant target.  Meanwhile, they can also infiltrate terror circles to give us forewarning of attacks in the US, and can take action to prevent them.

Six:  Read some Tom Clancy.  This ties in with most of the above statements.  Tom Clancy&#39;s books provide a good inside look at our military, presidency, and general government workings, with a no-nonsense fashion.  Tom shows things as they are, not as they&#39;re portrayed to be.  He does all this while providing the information in a manner that keeps you interested.

EDIT:  Also, for those who were saying that "we don&#39;t know what&#39;s going on in Iraq".  How ignorant.  For one, do you realize we have people from the Middle East on this forum?  Notably, Nina.  You&#39;re making the assumption that nobody has done their homework, nobody has talked to people who&#39;ve been there and done that.  Assumptions=Bad.  It&#39;s not hard to find info on Iraq, you just have to do more than watch FOX news at night.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Tsen, 

I have a wart on my ass

Just because you cant see it doesnt mean it&#39;s not there.

It is simple, Sadam refused to let UN inspectors into certain bunkers. After the UN withdrew the inspet., Sadam dismanteled the nukes.

That is just common sense

----------


## Tsen

Except that Saddam never had the required technology or materials to make a nuclear bomb.  EVER.  Like I said, he might have tried.  But he never HAD a nuke.  Even Bush never said that--Bush was after WMDs, but he was after chem and bio weapons specifically.
Either way, let&#39;s suppose that Saddam DID have nukes.
ONE-- Saddam wouldn&#39;t use them on us.  That&#39;s tantamount to suicide.
TWO-- Saddam wouldn&#39;t have a reliable delivery method with significant range.  He didn&#39;t have ballistic missiles, nor did he have access to long-range bombers.  So what was he going to do with those nukes?  He wasn&#39;t about to use them on Israel--again, that would be tantamount to suicide.  Nuclear war of any kind wouldn&#39;t be good for Iraq.
THREE-- What of the other nations who&#39;ve violated the NPT?  Why didn&#39;t we invade India, Pakistan and ISRAEL?  They ALL violated the NPT.  Pakistan and India have even tested the nukes--so there&#39;s no guessing about it--they HAVE nukes.  With Iraq, even if you suspect it, there was no evidence whatsoever that they ever had nuclear weapons, or the technology to make them.

So why is it that it was SO important, SO necessary to invade Iraq?  They didn&#39;t HAVE nukes, they wouldn&#39;t have used them if they had, and there are several nations who have nukes for sure.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> So why is it that it was SO important, SO necessary to invade Iraq?  They didn&#39;t HAVE nukes, they wouldn&#39;t have used them if they had, and there are several nations who have nukes for sure.
> [/b]



Which is exactly why the Administration had to dress up Iraq as having had _something_ to do with 9/11, because the American people were, hopefully, not stupid enough to go along with invading Iraq, for the _real_ reasons. They were (somewhat) careful about not stating there was a "direct link," (although I do think Bush did say so, once or twice) but they made sure to use Iraq, al Qaeda and 9/11 in the same context, as often as possible. 

This is (partly) why there is such a backlash now, because people realized we were duped into this war (and that&#39;s without even _considering_ whether the reasons for doing so were wrong or not,) and many of us just don&#39;t f&#39;cking like it.

----------


## Kaniaz

There are way too many people - not everyone - who just want this entire thing one of two ways. I don&#39;t know, but it sure looks to me like a more complicated scenario than &#39;government duped us all&#39; or &#39;evil regime was close to marching upon Whitehouse&#39;.

Politics is centred entirely around the games of double-dealing, backstabbing and goodness knows what else. You can&#39;t write two sentences about it and call it a denounément, no matter how much vehlmence and eye popping conviction you put into it. And, maybe, just maybe, it&#39;s a bad idea to make a conclusion when you don&#39;t have all the facts (you don&#39;t, and I don&#39;t either).

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Keep in mind that politics is a game, Just as Kaniaz displayed
Its not always about right and wrong, but who comes out to be most powerful
Why do you think people like Napolean and Hitler just decided to take over Europe for no real, valid reason.

Its all a game, and it is constantly played, despite what the public says

----------


## Tsen

I love how yoiu insist on hiding behind others rather than answering the points delivered against you.

I agree with Kaniaz, yes, politics usually is a game, with a good share of double talk.  The conflict goes deeper than any surface-level reading.
But I don&#39;t think YOU get it.  You haven&#39;t answered anybody&#39;s points.  You haven&#39;t even conceded that we probably didn&#39;t invade Iraq because of WMDs.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Listen Tsen, 

I KNOW WE DIDNT INVADE BECAUSE OF WMDs&#33;&#33;&#33;

the POSSIBILITY of Iraq having them was a mere tool used by Bush to get people on his side.

The reason we invaded, in my opinion, was the show the world what happens when you dont FULLY CONCEDE to our wishes, in this case, exploring hidden bunkers.

Is that a noble or just cause? HELL NO. 

I dont support bush, even though he is conservative. I dont blindly follow what my leader tells me.

The direction this topic took was about TROOPS, not bush.

Bush is a country retard, but dont spit on soldiers because of what he made them do.

And, oh yea, if sadam had nukes, i know HE wouldnt have used them on us. He would have sold them to terrorists, who would use it on us or another UN country.

There, is that to the point enough for you.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> I don&#39;t know, but it sure looks to me like a more complicated scenario than &#39;government duped us all&#39; or &#39;evil regime was close to marching upon Whitehouse&#39;.
> [/b]



Most situations are.

I hope, though, you&#39;re not using my post to try to assume my stance on the war, in general. I haven&#39;t concluded anything except that deception was a tactic used to get us to war. I&#39;ve been careful to tread lightly on this subject because there is good and bad in (nearly) all things, and I feel that almost any point made can be effectively countered by the other side, when it comes to Iraq.

----------


## shark!

..wait your talking about me right?

so don&#39;t metaphorically spit on soldiers huh?  Idk ppl condem a lot of terrorists right? Arn&#39;t some of them following orders?  Just as tricked by muslim leaders and ideology as your marines are tricked by valor bravery patriotism and all that bullshit? i dont know for sure...there seems to be a small similarity here? even if they are not exact equals, they still are both soldiers on different teams.  Both agreeing to be pawns.

My Point was just from one perspective someone is a "freedom fighter" and from another perspective they are a "terrorist".  And this includes US marines and soldiers.

I understnad marines are just pawns in the leaders wars...and I don&#39;t wish for bad things to happen to them...and I hope they can come home alive, for the sake of themselves and their families...but the above and my other post are the reasons why not only do I not support the government...but I don&#39;t support your troops either...just like I don&#39;t support terrorists.

(and when I talk about troops killing I meant all civilians killed in Iraq by bombing and the intial conquest as well as small massacres and torture...even though technically by definition most of this killing was done with "conventional warfare"...and not terrorism...I dont see tooo much of a difference on the faces of the dead people and their families...except their conventional attacks killed far more civilians...)

you are right oneironaut most points can be countered...although one side doesn&#39;t seem to want to counter?  and my posts are really only vague opinions that arn&#39;t set in stone or anything...and that prolly are not often shared especially if you had a brother in the army or something.

so inconclusion it is leaders and institutions who are to blame for the manipulation of gullible people.  To quote Mick Jagger, "anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope"...as if anarchy would ever work pfft.

----------


## SKA

> Perhaps it was because Clinton has to appease all thos Assholes on the Religious Conservative Right who absolutely insisted that America make every Non-Jew in the World some enemy of the state.  Clinton could never ignore a political poll, and American&#39;s loved to hate Saddam Hussein, no matter how good he was. 
> [/b]



Racist. 

@ the War in Iraq:
Saddam was indeed no peacefull ruler, a bloody dictator for sure, comitting genocide on the Kurds in the North killing 1000nds with Toxic Gas. I saw a documentairy where he had held a sort of speach in front of old classmates he had &#39;&#39;summoned&#39;&#39; . He had them picked out one by one and had them shot as the other&#39;s fearfully awated their names to be called. All awhile he was enjoying a fat cigare. He was rather paranoid too and had lots of people eliminated in fear of revolutionairy anti-gouvernemnt plans. Saddam was a Sunni and mostly the Sunni popuplation, a Minority in Iraq, got all the Good jobs in Saddam&#39;s system. The Shi&#39;ite Mayority had always suffered more under Saddam&#39;s Tyrannic rule.

He indeed knew how to keep things quiet and under control. In a &#39;&#39;Head down or I&#39;ll chop it off&#33;&#39;&#39;- kind of way, but it always did the trick.

Now that Saddam&#39;s been crushed and the US gouvern iraq, the Sunni Minority is suddenly in intense conflict with the Pissed off Shi&#39;ite mayority who is now &#39;&#39;getting back at them. A civil war is about to exist between Sunni Militants and Shi&#39;ite Militants...It&#39;s already slowly started.

And Don&#39;t think IRAN has nothing to do with this. Iraq was Suni (or more: Under Suni Rule in Saddam times) and Iran has always been a Shi&#39;ite nation. 

Now that the Suni power of Saddam&#39;s rule in Iraq has been broken by the US an unbalanced, Unstabile dangerious situation arose. And Iran is gladly supplying the weapons to all Iraqi Shi&#39;ite Militants because they both share the same cause: To sack and ustabilise the American &#39;&#39;Democratic&#39;&#39; Political System in Iraq and to drive the Americans out. This way Iran can afford to fight a stealthy war against Iraqi Suni&#39;s and The American Insterted Political Gouverning System without being Directly responsible. Iran uses Iraq as a Military and Political Play ground for Power in the Middle East. Exactly the same way Iran does by Supplying Hizbollah in Suothern Lebanon to Fight Israël: They can get away with it for not being directly responsible...or at least they think. They have managed to do so for a long time now but they can&#39;t keep doing it forever untill someone stops them. I think it will happen soon. 

Iran only supplies the Iraqi militants with loads of weapons, bombs and ammo. The Iraqi Militant groups claim resposibility for it, but Let&#39;s not forget that Iran has supplied them the tools to commit such murderous bomb attacks on civilians on markets. And Iran has it&#39;s own interrests in fighting this war against The American Influence in Iraq too.

It&#39;s obvious that America only went into Iraq with all Guns blazing with their interrests towards the Oil-Benefits conquering the country would bring. Too bad that the Americans didn&#39;t give a hoot about the History, Culture, Political Situations and Sentiment amongst the people of the Middle East and just went in without any Knowledge of what was already going on their.

Now they find themselves in a country surrounded by native people from which anybody or everybody could suddely trigger a bomb or start shooting at you and they don&#39;t understand 2 shits of it all anymore.

----------


## Tsen

First:  I never said we shouldn&#39;t support our troops.  I even said that I understand that they have to make split second decisions or die, so I can excuse them for accidental deaths of civilians.  I said that it was the government&#39;s fault, and they ought realize that.

Second:  Saddam wouldn&#39;t have sold nukes to terrorists.  For one, did you know that we can track the exact reactor that uranium or plutonium was produced in just by analyzing the radioactive material in the blast zone and measuring the levels of impurities in it?  So Saddam would still be implicated in the attack even if it wasn&#39;t him that delivered the bomb.  Not to mention, Saddam had no track record of EVER dealing with terrorists.  He actually kept terrorism out of Iraq for the most part.  He wouldn&#39;t have sold a nuke to terrorists--the terrorist&#39;s goals wouldn&#39;t have meshed with his own.

Third:  You&#39;ve been flip-flopping quite a bit.  Your first post said that Iraq would have been worse off if we hadn&#39;t invaded.  Wrong--remember what I said about us bringing terrorism to Iraq?  Plus, try comparing the number of civilian casualties in this campaign against them with the number of casualties Saddam inflicted.  The comparison is even better when you look at them relatively in comparison to time:  How many innocent civilians we&#39;ve killed in a few years there compared to how many Saddam killed in his entire time in power.

Fourth:  Your statement on "making an example of Iraq".  So Iraq should&#39;ve showed us what was in those bunkers just because we said so?  Or we go "make an example of them"?  Sounds like we&#39;re trying to play dictator of the world.  Under those rules, why don&#39;t we show China and Russia all the contents of our top-secret bunkers?  Under those rules, the only thing stopping China from prying into our ballistic missile sub plans is that we&#39;re still the biggest kid on the playground, so they won&#39;t have the military power to "teach us a lesson".  "Might makes right".  What a nasty world that would be.  I&#39;d suggest rethinking your stance.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Tsen,

Yes, it is true that we have killed a lot of civilians. Thats the nature of war.

Sadam&#39;s reign wasnt over. Who knows how many people would die from his hand in the future.

Maybe you shold have read my post fully before you told me to rethink my stance

I quote myself

"Is that a noble or just cause. HELLO NO"

I am not agreeing with our reasons.

And no, Russia and China wont check our shit out because everyone knows we have nukes. Its no secret&#33;&#33;&#33; We didnt know if Sadam had nukes, so when he started hiding stuff, it looked suspicious. That is the difference between us and Iraq. Besides, we&#39;re America&#33;&#33;&#33; caint noboby tell us what to do, else we&#39;ll kick&#39;em in the NUTZ&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (the UK and the Netherlands have nut-kicking rights as well (i dont want to be an American supremist))

----------


## Kaniaz

> I hope, though, you&#39;re not using my post to try to assume my stance on the war, in general. I haven&#39;t concluded anything except that deception was a tactic used to get us to war. I&#39;ve been careful to tread lightly on this subject because there is good and bad in (nearly) all things, and I feel that almost any point made can be effectively countered by the other side, when it comes to Iraq.[/b]



I&#39;d be a liar if I said I didn&#39;t - thanks for clarifying, I didn&#39;t read your post properly the first time and the subtleties were lost on me. My post wasn&#39;t directed at you in particular (or really you at all  :tongue2: ), but, still, my mistake.





> Besides, we&#39;re America&#33;&#33;&#33; caint noboby tell us what to do, else we&#39;ll kick&#39;em in the NUTZ&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (the UK and the Netherlands have nut-kicking rights as well (i dont want to be an American supremist))[/b]



I don&#39;t know about you guys, but pro or counter Iraq, this post just made me wonder exactly how you can argue when the other person thinks like this.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Kaniaz, you failed to see the attempt at humor.

TAKE A JOKE

And then you&#39;re gonna say,"well your attempt failed".
Well, ya caint blame me for tryin  :smiley:

----------


## Kaniaz

> Kaniaz, you failed to see the attempt at humor.
> 
> TAKE A JOKE[/b]



I can&#39;t say I&#39;m exactly shocked that it was _so totally a joke_ (this wouldn&#39;t be the first time you&#39;ve said that). I&#39;m not enteriely sure if a thread about the deaths of innocent people, war, terrorism, hidden nukes and political intrigue is exactly the place for stand up comedy, but ha ha that sure solves answering any real questions I guess&#33; As for me, I&#39;m bored going around in circles.

----------


## Amethyst Star

(Hmm... lots of replies.)

Blue, the reason I asked is because I wanted to hear what you thought a terrorist consists of.  That answer then told me your answer on whether or not you believed Saddam Hussein was a terrorist.

Under my definition, he is a terrorist: someone who spreads terror in order to fulfill a goal, whether that be power, money, religious advancement.  Saddam had thousands of the people that he ruled killed in order to gain political power and keep the population in fear.  Naturally, there will be some people who will disagree with that, but you can&#39;t deny the fact that people died because of this man.  If we went over to Iraq and that was the only reason we went, I say that the world is better for it.

And the only reason I posted in here, to be honest, wasn&#39;t to say yea or nay in regards to this "war."  It was to ask people (namely Americans) to stop standing around complaining and actually do something.  Support the people that are over there, even if you don&#39;t necessarily support what they are fighting for. (<----- left ambiguous for a reason.)

----------


## Tsen

Hominus, I&#39;m bordering on giving up.
You&#39;re arguing at a second grade level.

Just because America is big and tough doesn&#39;t mean we can do whatever we want--that goes back to the "Might Makes Right". 
And yes, I know that everybody knows the US has nukes.  But how is OUR having nukes different from THEM having nukes?  What makes it moral and just  in our case, but immoral and unlawful in their case? 
But now, let&#39;s not limit this to nukes.  America has a lot more than nukes hidden away.  All of our research and development programs are creating some things that are arguably nastier or more powerful than nukes.  China and Russia know this, they both have their own R&D programs running and have also stumbled across some nasty things.  So why are we allowed to demand Iraq show us their top secret materials, but other nations can&#39;t do the same to us?

----------


## shark!

> Under my definition, he is a terrorist: someone who spreads terror in order to fulfill a goal, whether that be power, money, religious advancement. [/b]



with a definition like that sounds like Bush is a terrorist too?  and those soldiers definetly spread some shock and awe terror...

...I keep thinking your ambiguoity is directed at least a little at me.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Go ahead, Tsen, give up

I doubt anyone here will miss you

Iraq is different than us because before the invasion they were a pretty irradic and unstable place. I dont mean their government was unstable, but there was some bad shit going on there. Although bush is stupid, i will not say he is evil. Sadam was evil, and eventually he would get nukes. He might not have turned them over to be used on us, but he definaltey would have used them to intimidate other countries.

By the way nuclear development has been banned. A nuke has not been created by America for a LONG time.
Then you say, "do you honestly believe nuclear develpment has stopped"
Yes, i do&#33;&#33;&#33; We already have enough in the arsenal to destroy the land mass of earth like 20 times or something. We dont need any more. You just made a random assumption that we have something greater than nukes. What do yo base that on? My  guess is nothing

So go ahead, stop posting here. In fact, dont post on any of my topics. Frankly im getting pretty sick of your shit.
Then you say "well, im getting pretty sick of YOUR shit"
And i say "well, i just dont give a fuck"

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> (Hmm... lots of replies.)
> 
> Blue, the reason I asked is because I wanted to hear what you thought a terrorist consists of.  That answer then told me your answer on whether or not you believed Saddam Hussein was a terrorist.
> 
> Under my definition, he is a terrorist: someone who spreads terror in order to fulfill a goal, whether that be power, money, religious advancement.  Saddam had thousands of the people that he ruled killed in order to gain political power and keep the population in fear.  Naturally, there will be some people who will disagree with that, but you can&#39;t deny the fact that people died because of this man.  If we went over to Iraq and that was the only reason we went, I say that the world is better for it.
> [/b]



I&#39;m afraid your definition of "terrorist" leads to some absurd results, Amé.

By your definition, Hitler would be a terrorist, Stalin would be a terrorist...

Arguably, even George Bush himself could be called a terrorist - he deliberately made use of the 9/11 attacks to infuse fear amoungst the American populace, fear which he later used to secure support for the war on Iraq.

I&#39;m sorry, Amé, but your definition is overly simple and absurd.





> And the only reason I posted in here, to be honest, wasn&#39;t to say yea or nay in regards to this "war."  It was to ask people (namely Americans) to stop standing around complaining and actually do something.  Support the people that are over there, even if you don&#39;t necessarily support what they are fighting for. (<----- left ambiguous for a reason.)
> [/b]



This is exactly IT.

Now, I am not an american, and I&#39;m sure I&#39;m going to take a lot of flak from some for what I am about to say:

I do not support the war.  NOR do I support the military.  NOR do I support the troops themselves.  This is a very hardline stance, I know.  Those soldiers CHOSE to join the military.  They knew full well that they were likely to get involved in a war which they may not support, and they knew full well they might have to kill people in furtherance of that war.  Now, many of you Americans may consider the notion that there is something commendable about "fighting for your country", even if you are fighting in a war you do not approve of.

I, however, do not.  I do not think there is anything commendable about joining the military in the first place.  While I may feel sorry for the soldiers in terms of the position many of them are now in, I do not support them.  For me, it is a case of antecedent fault.

----------


## Tsen

Nimrod.





> Iraq is different than us because before the invasion they were a pretty irradic and unstable place. I dont mean their government was unstable, but there was some bad shit going on there. Although bush is stupid, i will not say he is evil. Sadam was evil, and eventually he would get nukes. He might not have turned them over to be used on us, but he definaltey would have used them to intimidate other countries.[/b]



Actually, they were pretty stable, especially relative to other countries in the Middle East.  Saddam wasn&#39;t a nice guy.  I never argued that.  But he DID maintain control, and Iraq was NOT a place crawling with terrorists.  Until we stepped in.  
Yes, Saddam probably would have acquired nukes.  But again, it becomes a "so what" issue.  Like I mentioned earlier, India, Pakistan and Israel HAVE nukes.  Not _making an attempt_, not _almost_ have nukes, they *DO* have nukes.  So what&#39;s stopping Pakistan from threatening people with nukes?  What&#39;s stopping India?  What&#39;s stopping Israel?  Why don&#39;t we invade them?
Or how about North Korea?  They&#39;ve launched missile tests, and are working at acquiring a warhead capable of reaching the west coast of the USA.  No, they probably won&#39;t be attacking us with nuclear weapons, either.  But they&#39;re no less likely than Iraq.  And, unlike Iraq, N. Korea _already_ has enough material to make about 10 nuclear weapons, and the technology to do so.  They&#39;re actually planning an underground test of a nuclear weapon soon, so chances are they&#39;re now a nuclear power.
So what made Iraq the better target? 





> By the way nuclear development has been banned. A nuke has not been created by America for a LONG time.
> Then you say, "do you honestly believe nuclear develpment has stopped"
> Yes, i do&#33;&#33;&#33; We already have enough in the arsenal to destroy the land mass of earth like 20 times or something. We dont need any more. You just made a random assumption that we have something greater than nukes. What do yo base that on? My guess is nothing[/b]



No it hasn&#39;t.  We&#39;re not developing more H-Bombs, but we&#39;re currently researching using Hafnium to produce smaller nuclear warheads capable of being mounted on delivery mechanisms the size of a small Air To Air missle.  We had black projects running to develop biological and chemical weapons for several years, and while they&#39;re entirely stopped now, we still have some reserves that have not been incinerated yet. 
I&#39;m not guessing at this, and in addition, we have a &#036;22.336 BILLION R&D fund for our Air Force alone, an additional &#036;17 BILLION for nuclear weapon research and maintenance, and &#036;20.056 BILLION of unaccounted for military research funding.  That last &#036;20.056 billion is the real important number--that&#39;s on projects that we aren&#39;t allowed to know about, "black" projects.  Not all are weapon research, some are defensive, but there&#39;s still a good deal of research being done on more effective, more deadly weapons.  Again, not guesswork--that&#39;s from official records.  I can dig up the names of some old "black" projects if you want--obviously, I don&#39;t have the names of current ones, since they&#39;re classified, but we&#39;ve declassified some of the older ones and I can find you the records.  Some are particularly nasty.
(Numbers taken from official 2004 US Government spending reports)





> So go ahead, stop posting here. In fact, dont post on any of my topics. Frankly im getting pretty sick of your shit.[/b]



That&#39;s nice.  Stop being an ignorant asshole, go out and do some research, and then I won&#39;t have to correct every blatantly wrong statement you make.

EDIT:
Ongoing US Research into Nuclear Weapons

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> Go ahead, Tsen, give up
> 
> I doubt anyone here will miss you
> [/b]



Speak for yourself.  I certainly will... Tsen is an intelligent guy.





> So go ahead, stop posting here. In fact, dont post on any of my topics. Frankly im getting pretty sick of your shit.
> [/b]



Other way around, pal.

----------


## Howie

> honestly all I read in this quote is propoganda...and "We Need The Army The Army is great and we should never question it"...which maybe I can&#39;t comprehend...or its just stupid...one or the other.  Maybe we should question what soldiers do?  Are they trying to hide something? is that why the man doesn&#39;t want what he does questioned?  If I was doing a good job playing defense of america I wouldn&#39;t mind a little questioning?  On the other hand if what I was doing was very sketchy(I&#39;d invoke "patriotism" and "fear" to keep anyone trying to question me under my control.) I&#39;d prolly say something exactly like this to do just that:
> so maybe they need some sort of bridges to other places? instead of a wall? no more enemies? am I being stupid, ideological, utopian and unrealistic when I suggest that though???
> [/b]



A world that has walls, shark. 
We as the last dominant super power are now world police. Who else is going to do it? You Shark?
Most of you cannot see further than your own nose much less comprehend a weight of our administration to have to police the world and still make everyone happy.
We have governments that has a job to do. If you believe you know what needs and has to be done to secure our nation, then my hats of to you. 
You are guarded by a nation that grants you those rights to question the nation and the ones governing it. However what many fail to understand is that there are decisions made by our government that are decided from information gathered from covert and confidential material.
Do to the clandestine nature in which this information is collected our administration cannot tell every citizen who what why and where.
If you don&#39;t like this, then you will not enjoy the freedoms we have. 
All I see are transient ideas. Opinions.

For the record,
WMDs are not restricted to nuclear weapons.
Therefore it is a fact that Iraq has WMD. Primarily because he has used them.
 - A nation most likely second or third in petroleum - Iraq. Tell me why they would be looking (as they claim) to manufacture enriched uranium for power sources.    ::?:  
- Why would a country over an eleven year period play cat and mouse games with our weapons inspections. They would not allow us is particular areas&#33; Why would that be if there was nothing to hide?
- Why would they right up some outrageous 200 page resolution of bullcrap, if not only to buy time.
Prior to our engagment to the actual military strike, there were several attempts at stalling all of the Unitied nations and thier efforts.

----------


## shark!

> 346354[/snapback]</div>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				I&#39;m afraid your definition of "terrorist" leads to some absurd results, Amé.
> 
> By your definition, Hitler would be a terrorist, Stalin would be a terrorist...
> ...



you make it sound like killing ppl and declaring war on an ideology isn&#39;t making more people hate america.  So fair enough I understand you now, you think what the government does makes you safer, and is helping the whole world.  I think the opposite.



then let me say...as lightly as I can. America does a very goddamn piss-poor job at what they are claiming as "policing the world"  vietnam...proxy wars...iraq 1 and 2...war on terror...Keep up the good work&#33;

----------


## wombing

Ame, i am so sick to death of people saying "support our troops, whether you agree with -insert particular war here- or not"

  if i was an american, i can tell you one thing very bluntly. 

  i would love your brother as an individual trying to find his place in a very confusing and sometimes violent world. we all make mistakes...often well-intentioned but mis-informed.

  and i would hate the fact that he was a soldier...in his capacity as such i would not support him one bit. it would anger me immensely to know that a portion of my tax dollars (my life) was being expended by "my" government to recruit, train, equip, and employ hired killers.

  your brother is a hired killer. that is all "soldier" means. whether that killing is "justified" or "holy" or "done for the right reasons" is something everyone must answer for themself. 

  i am sure he is not raping women or killing innocent children (of any age) maliciously.

  but he is a killer. he has CHOSEN that role for himself. and that disgusts me, and frightens me, and weakens me, and literally makes me weep for your brother this very moment.

  and no, i&#39;m not trying to play some emotional card to give credence to my "argument".
-----
  i&#39;m just saying how dare you as a CHRISTIAN ask anyone to "support our hired killers" as they this very day are killing&#33;

  it disgusts me. 

  if your brother considers himself a christian, his decision to fight in iraq especially disgusts me.

  in that capacity he induces vomiting, not support.

 --
  public support is what allows every war to occur.

  the war in iraq is senseless, base, and needless.

  to ask anybody to support the means of its occurence-"our troops"-is absurd.

  ----
  playing upon people&#39;s ignorance and fear and cultural bias is the same means by which "real" terrorists are initially convince people to strap bombs to themselves and kill americans, or jews, or whomever. just as they themselves were convinced at one time.

  i saw a documentary once about suicide bombers. it had footage of young man of twenty or so (perhaps near your brother&#39;s age?). he had decided to be "noble" and fight for "good" by choosing to kill one or more human beings.

  his mother was there as he prepared to leave for the last time. she was weeping profusely, and yet a glint of pride coldly shone from her eyes. she roughly said she was sad he would die, but she SUPPORTED him.

----
  even when you say "support the PEOPLE" fighting over in iraq, what exactly do you mean? why them especially? 

  they don&#39;t need to be supported quite frankly, they need to be helped. helped to see they are killing and dying for a joke. needlessly. 

  if a bunch of alcoholics were on an island slowly drinking themselves to death, would you support them?
  if a bunch of suicidal manic-depressants were having a gathering where they trained and equipped those pressent to kill themselves, would you support them?

  those people need help, not support.

 if a bunch of hired killers were off in another country killing others, and themselves, why on god&#39;s green earth would you support them?

  i well realize that this may all be a matter of semantics, but i highly doubt it. the underlying vibe behind "support our troops" is unmistakeable.
  i never hear those spewing that phrase saying "support the iraqi fighters, whether you agree with them or not."

  so if you wish to continue urging others to support our troops, please specify in which particular sense you mean "support".





> the activity of providing for or maintaining by supplying with money or necessities; "his support kept the family together"; "they gave him emotional support during difficult times" 
> 
> give moral or psychological support, aid, or courage to; "She supported him during the illness"; "Her children always backed her up" 
> 
> aiding the cause or policy or interests of; "the president no longer had the support of his own party"; "they developed a scheme of mutual support" 
> 
> support materially or financially; "he does not support his natural children"; "The scholarship supported me when I was in college" 
> 
> something providing immaterial assistance to a person or cause or interest; "the policy found little public support"; "his faith was all the support he needed"; "the team enjoyed the support of their fans" 
> ...

----------


## xcrissxcrossx

I agree with leo. i think that saddam should be in power still. he has been ruling Iraq for the same way he has for many years and all of a sudden we come in and arrest him for no reason. i think we we&#39;re real jackasses for doing that. I mean we get hit by plains from Al Qaeda and the next thing i knew we are in IRAQ aresting Hussein because bush said he was a threat when he was probably the least threatening nation in the middle east. You republicans always try to make us fel bad by saying "We are flag burners"and "We hate God" when you cant think of any other arguements why your side is right, because it isnt. other than the Us forces, which even though the people may be happier, saddam was screwed because bush was bored&#33;

----------


## shark!

wombing, that was a great post. thankyou.  I honestly believe you are on to something, not that its a new idea or anything but...  imagine majorities believing what you said...that would be the day.  its really too bad your view is far and few between.





> public support is what allows every war to occur.[/b]



...without public support war would be just a few men...calling themselves leaders, leading noone.


i&#39;d like to believe its possible...I dont know about you...but I don&#39;t think there really is any hope.

----------


## Alric

Terrorist are a made up threat used by our government to scare people into believing there is a need for more laws to protect us and are a tool to help expand the powers of government. That should be obvious to everyone. All we hear over and over again is terrorist are out to get us yet there are no terrorist.

If the government actually believed there was real terrorist trying to attack us the first thing they would do is close the border. Instead they have been activly trying to erase the border. So you have to ask yourself, why would the government try and erase the border while at the same time their scared of terrorist? The simple answer it they wouldn&#39;t.

The US government knows there are no terrorist. The only reason they bring it up often is because it allows them to pass other laws that expand the powers of the government which would never pass if there was not some kind of "threat" against us.

----------


## Rage of Poseidon

Alric, I really hope you don&#39;t believe that....

----------


## Amethyst Star

I had stuff to say, but I deleted it.  So I will leave this with a few points.

1.  Shark, the first post wasn&#39;t aimed at you.  However, your next post was a personal insult.  I have one brother going to Iraq, another brother who is going to be a career officer in the National Guard (and a good one, to boot), a cousin who will soon be finishing his allotted time with the Air Force; my dad was in both the Marines and the Navy, as was his father, and my grandpa on my mom&#39;s side.  I&#39;ll be damned if I let someone say that the military is nothing more than trained killers.

2.  I&#39;m done discussing this.  I publically profess my ignorance, but I am neither blind nor stupid.  Call it a weak cop-out if you want, but I&#39;m sick to death of all strife that this has caused and while I may have a stronger opinion later (when I do my own research), right now I perfer to remain on the side that I am on.

That&#39;s one reason I plan to be an interpretor (if you can read between the lines).

----------


## Alric

Maybe you can explain why they are trying to erase the border instead of closing it down then? If you think I am wrong you should be able to explain this one thing which makes absolutely no sense.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

Alric, I haven&#39;t got a clue what you are talking about.  If you could explain in clear english what on earth you&#39;re talking about when you speak of closing and erasing the border, that would be just great.

----------


## Leo Volont

> I agree with leo. i think that saddam should be in power still. he has been ruling Iraq for the same way he has for many years and all of a sudden we come in and arrest him for no reason. i think we we&#39;re real jackasses for doing that. I mean we get hit by plains from Al Qaeda and the next thing i knew we are in IRAQ aresting Hussein because bush said he was a threat when he was probably the least threatening nation in the middle east. You republicans always try to make us fel bad by saying "We are flag burners"and "We hate God" when you cant think of any other arguements why your side is right, because it isnt. other than the Us forces, which even though the people may be happier, saddam was screwed because bush was bored&#33;
> [/b]



I Think what happened was Baby Bush had issues with his father.  George Bush Sr. felt that Iraq had more military capabilities then it needed and so destroyed the excess, but was not silly enough to go onto Bhagdad. 

so why is it that the son was so anxious to repudiate and nullify the policy of the father?

It was a family issue.  Baby Bush was acting out some ancient teenage rebellion.

Because of a dysfunctional dynamic in the Bush Family, America has destabilized the World, and run America into a debt it might never be able to pay off. 

I was thinking, that I rather doubt that America is adding up the cost of supporting all of the Solders who are being maimed over there.  It used to be that soldiers were killed in battle.  But now with all of the body armor designed to protect the vital organs, while all the limbs are exposed to shot and explosives, a greater proportion of casualties then ever before are being maimed and disabled.  The America Public will have to pay for this, unless they plan that all of these disabled ex-soldiers will be homeless beggers on the street.  Which reminds me.  Have we not seen a great many homeless begger Vietnam Vets, and homeless begger Desert Storm Vets?  What is it with America?  The Propaganda Capital of the World, but when one goes to America and looks around -- it is a Giant Overrated Third World Dictatorship dedicated to embeggering its Population and enslaving and destroying everybody and everything.  And why?

I can only suppose that America is being run by the Secret Dictates of the Free Masons, but that the Free Mason Leadership is definitely NOT American.  Why else would everything America does be NOT in the interest of America.

America is either absolutely Stupid, or America is being controlled by Non-American Interests and Agendas. 

Or perhaps America IS that stupid.  What can we expect of a Democracy that stands 19th in Education and Intelligence of all the Advanced Nations, behind many of the Developing Nations... only barely squeezing out Mexico.  19th&#33;?  Why, where does one draw the Line that can decide that America must be a nation of Retards.  Retards who vote.  Retards who run for Office and become President&#33;  

and Retards who still don&#39;t know that Iraq was the worst decision since, well, Iran 30 years ago, another American debacle, so similar to the Iraq debacle that one wonders that Americans are paying absolutely no attention at all.  Blind, stupid and unconscious.





> It&#39;s obvious that America only went into Iraq with all Guns blazing with their interrests towards the Oil-Benefits conquering the country would bring. 
> 
> [/b]



People mistake the "Oil Motive".

America does not WANT the Oil.

Remember, the Bush&#39;s control both Arabian Oil, and they have the Political Support of the Texas Oil Billionaires.

so they don&#39;t WANT oil.  They already HAVE oil. 

What they WANTED was to CUT OFF oil, and to threaten Oil supplies so that THE PRICE OF OIL WOULD SKYROCKET.   

More Oil would have dropped the price of Oil.  Why would the Bush Family have wanted that?

But look what they Policies have done.  By Threatening and Destroying Oil in Iraq and cutting off Iran, Price for Oil have more than tripled since GeorgeBaby Bush became President. Now Arabian Oil and Texas Oil are selling at a primium. 

If Oil were selling at &#036;200 a barrel, although every economy in the World crash into ruin, the Bush&#39;s would not be any happier.  Though everyone else be miserable, they would be richer than every before.

Is that not what Competitive Capitalism and Conservative Philosophy is all about?  One Winner and a Trillion Losers.

----------


## Alric

By closing the border I mean stopping the millions upon millions of illegal immigrants who simply walk across the border. Also the millions of pounds of drugs that cross the border every year with ease. If they were worried about terrorist they would close the border and stop that.

When I say erase the border I am talking about creating the american union and doing just that, erasing the borders and allowing everyone to pass into and out of our country freely without any restrictions.

----------


## Leo Volont

> Also the millions of pounds of drugs that cross the border every year with ease. If they were worried about terrorist they would close the border and stop that.
> 
> [/b]



Making Drugs illegal simply makes Law Enforcment the Gatekeepers and Toll Collectors for the Trade. 

To stop it, just legalize Drugs.  

All that Tax Free Cash going to Corrupt Officials will dry up overnight, and they will have no choice but to shut down their operations. 

And about Illegal Immigration.  Well, Let the Advanced Countries stop pillaging the Economies of the Developing Nations.  Screw Free Trade and allow the Developing Economies to Protect their own Jobs and Growing Industrial Infrastructures.  But while their Jobs are being bid away to the Lowest Bidders, then what choice do the World&#39;s Unemployed have but to cross borders to chase what had been their old jobs.

----------


## Alric

If you want to make drugs legal then fine, I don&#39;t care. You can&#39;t have armed drug smugglers driving back and forth over the border however.

----------


## Original Poster

Listen, Howetzer, badassbob, crazy-person-that-started-this-topic, other people that have some weird idea that the American soldiers are in some way protecting us from evils and protecting freedom...

Before Bush Oil was cheaper than water, averaging just over a buck nationwide.  Then what happens?  It goes up.  You know what else?  The oil companies explain their GIANT prophets are due to supply and demand.  You listen to their testimonies and they explain it to you, cut and dry, the world at this point in time thanks to invasions of sovereign nations and the increase in religious fundamentalism in countries like Iraq vying for power has increased unrest to such a degree that trade has become nearly impossible, the supply, though in effect not going down, has, through war, been able to appear to go down, meaning that though the supply isn&#39;t that bad, it&#39;s purposely a lot harder to get, meanwhile... it&#39;s still just as easy to get.  Basically, the oil companies are getting lot&#39;s and lot&#39;s of free money thanks to the war.  Other companies like halliburton are making shitloads of prophet.  Billions and billions of dollars are going into these companies as a result of the war.

Now according to your beliefs, apparently, and I don&#39;t mean to strawman you, these are just "side-effects" of the war for freedom, that these companies are fucking rich, that everybody that backed Bush to get into power, Oil companies for the most part, sponsoring his campaign, is now filthy rich.  The companies that supported Bush for presidency are now facing massive success through no-bid contracts and whatever else.  This is apparently though, just a side-effect to our war for freedom and to free the Iraqi people.  Yeah, okay.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

I think im going to go cry about some of the idiotic things i have read today.

Somebody said there are no terrorists in the world left. 
You should be the only person alive denied their right to free speech. You base that on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but your own opinion.

the whole "trained killers" discussion.
I hate to break it to you hippies but the world is not a nice place. What do you want us to do? Have no military? If we did that fuckin MEXICO could invade and occupy us. We may be fighting an unjust war, but "trained killers" are a necessity to a country. If you cannot see that you are blind. 

Not everyone on earth wants to be a peace-loving and "sophisticated" like you. There will always be people out there meaning to harm peace-loving countries, so we need to have a protective force (i am not referring to the current use of the military).

Someone was talking about "the soldiers joined the army voluntarily" like it was the cool thing to do.
Do you think Iraq is some sort of picnic? Soldiers dont join the military (well, most of them) so they can go feel superior to enemies. They do it for training and serving their country. 

Our soldiers are FAR braver than any of you criticizing them. They are true people who give this country it&#39;s might and freedom. None of you, including myself, have done a GOD DAMN thing to attribute to the greatness of America, so i say its about time you give them some god damn respect. Dont respect the cause they support, respect the person. The soldiers over in Iraq have gone through stuff you couldnt even handle while you chill in the USA with your little day job and watching American Idol and Desperate Housewives. 

Soldiers have sacrificed their own freedom to ensure that you have it (again, i am not referring to the Iraq war). Without soldiers, you would have no freedom.

----------


## NeAvO

You&#39;ve got to remember that people are saying their opinions you can&#39;t just critisize them on what they believe. Even if you don&#39;t agree on their views.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Howetzer,

I think its about time you put that long quote on this thread again. I think it would be a good addition and follow up for all these hippies

Neavo,

When people say that there are terrorists in the world left they deserve to be reprimanded. I know opinions are supposed to be about feeling but i dont even think HE believes it. He was just trying to poke at bush just like all the other libs here.

And by the way, the libs have been criticizing our opinions the whole time, its not just me.

----------


## shark!

> Our soldiers are FAR braver than any of you criticizing them. They are true people who give this country it&#39;s might and freedom. None of you, including myself, have done a GOD DAMN thing to attribute to the greatness of America, so i say its about time you give them some god damn respect.  Dont respect the cause they support, respect the person. The soldiers over in Iraq have gone through stuff you couldnt even handle while you chill in the USA with your little day job and watching American Idol and Desperate Housewives. [/b]



...so killing people needlessly in iraq is what makes america great? And you expect us to respect that?  At least you agree that they are trained killers.

----------


## badassbob

> ...so killing people needlessly in iraq is what makes america great? And you expect us to respect that?  At least you agree that they are trained killers.
> [/b]



They are trained to kill the people who are a risk to Iraqi civillians. They only kill people who are either uncooperative or risk the lives of others. The last thing it should be described as is needless.

These people work for a government that wants to help Iraq to rebuild their economy, government, and cities. They deserve more gratitude than you give them.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

GODDAMNIT SHARK READ MY FUCKING POST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&  #33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I SAID CONSTANTLY THROUGHOUT THE POST THAT I AM NOT REFERING TO IRAQ. I COULD NOT MAKE IT ANY CLEARER SO STOP SAYING STUPID SHIT. WITHOUT A TRAINED, EFFECTIVE MILITARY WE WOULD BE POWERLESS&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU SHOULD RESPECT THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A JOB THAT OFTEN CALLS FOR THEIR DEATH. THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESPECT THEM, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING CURRENTLY.

you constantly fail to see my point that the war in Iraq SUCKS&#33;&#33;&#33; I know that. Our soldiers are killing needlessy and mercilessly. I know that. So stop telling me and answer to my post directly. Prove to me that you are somehow more respectable than a soldier and i will be content. AND NO, YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE THAT YOU DONT KILL PEOPLE NEEDLESSLY. Prove to me that you are more human than someone who has a job that involves constant fear and death. I dont predict you can, because you are NOTHING compared to those brave men and women.

QUIT BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THEY KILL. EVERY SOLDIER KILLS.

sorry everybody, but i tried to make it clear i wasnt refering to Iraq. I guess some people are just illiterate or ignorant

and oh, yea, shark

I dream of bullets for YOU

----------


## Tsen

So I take it you&#39;re just going to ignore my post.  Can&#39;t say I expected you to be able to counter it effectively.  I mean, you really botched things--and it shows.  First you claim that we really should be in Iraq at the beginning of this thread, then you change that position because the opposition got too tough for you.  Then you claimed Saddam had nukes, but that wasn&#39;t working so well for you, so you gave that up.  Then you started saying that we invaded just to show &#39;em who&#39;s boss.  Y&#39;know, &#39;cuz we can.  But that was stupid from the beginning, so you&#39;ve stopped saying that.  Then you claimed America no longer researched new nuclear weapons, and look how bad _that_ turned out.

Maybe you should cut your losses and retreat?

----------


## The Blue Meanie

Awww, come on, Tsen, don&#39;t come down too hard on the poor kid.  :tongue2:

----------


## Alric

I didn&#39;t mean there are no terrorist in the world, just that their are none actively trying to harm the US like our government would like us to believe. And when I say terrorist I mean an organized group, yes there are criminals in the world but robbing a bank doesn&#39;t make you a terrorist.

Its not based on only my opinion its based on the facts. Some people would like you to believe there are terrorist hiding around every corner yet where are they? I don&#39;t see any terrorists. The only terrorist caught since 9/11 have either been soilders fighting in places like iraq, which are not terrorists, or random people the government sets up and try to entrap.

Take the recent air plane scare. What terrorists did they catch? Some guys who had no explosives, didn&#39;t know how to build explosives, didn&#39;t have a plane tickets had no plans to buy plane tickets and who were basicly just average citizens. Then the entire idea of how they were going to mix exploves on the plane without anyone noticing has been found to be nearly impossible to do. To put it frankly it was total bull. They weren&#39;t terrorists. And the same thing goes for all the other "terrorists" they have caught. Half the time they get some stupid kid and they have a police officer just keep buying them guns and giving them cash and they tell them "You know you should blow something up", then when the stupid teenager agrees they arrest them and go "Look we caught a terrorist". Most of the terrorist they catch, just get released, because the charges are total bull. Yet the news never covers it when they release them.

So yea you can yell there are terrorist all over and you can beg for the government to take all your rights away to keep you safe, but your a moron if you do. There are no terrorists. Next thing you will say is we need to better secure our country because the boogie man is out to get us. Yea hes going to grab you when your sleeping so you better do whatever the government says or you will regret it. If there are any terrorists here its probably the government, they are the ones trying to scare people.

----------


## Aim Sniff

Oh well, if someone killed 2 million people it should be a "reason" or an excuse to go to war. Anyways we need the oil.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Yea, Alric. That seems pretty reasonable. After terrorists saw what happened to their orgainizations after 9/11 i doubt there will be an attack for a while. 

Thanks for clearing that up  ::bigteeth::  

Tsen,

Dont be stupid. Iraq had uranium. What do you think? 
I said Iraq was not better of with Sadam in power. I NEVER SAID INVADING WAS THE BEST CHOICE.
America no longer creates larger and bigger nuclear bombs. That is a fact. Research still continues, my bad.
I never said we SHOULD have invaded because "we&#39;re the best". Bush did to prove a point.

There, i refuted everything you said directly. 

Anyway, all of you should read my post in the lounge about the duality of America.

Lets all just be friends  ::content::

----------


## Tsen

No, you&#39;re just changing your words around so that it doesn&#39;t look quite as bad.
You said America has completely stopped R&D as well as production on nukes.  Which is 100% wrong.  Either way, you still haven&#39;t told me why Iraq needed to reveal all of their secret R&D projects when we don&#39;t have to.  You still haven&#39;t given an answer there.





> Dont be stupid. Iraq had uranium. What do you think[/b]



Having Uranium and having a bomb are very different.  Especially since they only had low-quality, unenriched Uranium and depleted Uranium (USA Today).  Guess what unenriched Uranium is good for?  Medical, agricultural and industrial purposes.  That&#39;s it.  It can&#39;t be used in a bomb, you need to run the UF6 through a series of centrifuges to get it to a high enough concentration before it can be used in a bomb.  Those centrifuges are complex pieces of equipment, and Iraq DID NOT HAVE the centrifuges to enrich Uranium to that level.  Now, let&#39;s pretend Iraq somehow got their hands on some technicians and expert assistance and built and manned the centrifuges.  Guess how long it would take to build up enough material to make a bomb?  Five to ten YEARS.  And that&#39;s assuming they have enough raw material to run through them.  After that, there&#39;s still a problem:  They don&#39;t have the technical expertise and equipment necessary to actually put the bomb together.
It&#39;s entirely implausible.

Any more statements you want me to correct, Hominus?

----------


## Hominus Feralis

We dont have to reveal our stuff because we are extremely stable. You dont see the UN having a meeting about investigating us. But they had a meeting about Iraq. Obviously it was more than one country that thought Sadam needed to be investigated, and i think the UN&#39;s opinion carries a little more weight than yours.

And about "technical expertees" please. If freggin North Korea can get nukes so can Iraq. Again, you base the statement about Iraq&#39;s expertees on absolutely nothing.

America HAS stopped the quest for bigger and better nukes. In fact, they are downsizing them to be the size of a Sidewinder missle, according to someone who posted here.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> We dont have to reveal our stuff because we are extremely stable. You dont see the UN having a meeting about investigating us. But they had a meeting about Iraq. Obviously it was more than one country that thought Sadam needed to be investigated, and i think the UN&#39;s opinion carries a little more weight than yours.
> [/b]



The USA is the ONLY country in WORLD history to attack another country using nuclear weaponry, killing between 100,000 and 200,000 innocent civilians on those occaisions.  Furthermore, the USA has what is probably the largest, most sophisticated, actively maintained nuclear arsenal and continues active research and development in order to expand its arsenal.  FURTHERMORE, over the past few decades, the USA has been involved, as an agressor, in what have since been recognised to be some of the bloodiest, pointless military campaigns in world history... ALL of which occurred outside of US territory.

NOT A FUCKING GOOD TRACK RECORD&#33;

I think it is VERY fucking CLEAR that the USA is much more of a threat to world peace than ANY other country.

The reason the UN isn&#39;t trying to investigate tghe USA, is because America&#39;s nuclear and military capabilities are already very clear.  There is simply NOTHING to investigate.

The only thing the UN can do is to try to get the US to disarm.

And do you really imagine that happening?  No.  So, instead, America is just given free reign, so that the UN can continue to exist and not expose itself as a weak, pathetic, impotent joke of an organisation.

----------


## Original Poster

The UN&#39;s army: The US army.  Therein lies the problem.  The only force that could tangle witrh the US at this moment in time is China, and they wouldn&#39;t want to do that, the US and Chinese economies are so strongly linked neither are about to touch each other.  Both are happy capitalists plundering off the weak.  (Yes, China is capitalist, that communist title is a facade).

----------


## Hominus Feralis

The Blue Meanie

you may not believe it, but using the a-bombs in Japan actually saved lives.

If we didnt use them, we would have fire bombed several cities, and there would be several battles. 
It is indisputable that the a bomb saved lives. Ask any expert. 
American casualties would have estimated about 300,000 (well over half of the deaths in the European and African theaters (the total death toll for the USA was roughly 555,000) and Japanese casualties would have numbered over 2 million.
We did it to end the war, and you better believe the Japanese would have kept fighting WAY past their effective abilities.

The a bomb actually saved lives, so your main argument just got squashed to jack shit

----------


## shark!

btw, I suggest you read all the previous posts more carefully hominus.





> GODDAMNIT SHARK READ MY FUCKING POST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&  #33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I SAID CONSTANTLY THROUGHOUT THE POST THAT I AM NOT REFERING TO IRAQ. I COULD NOT MAKE IT ANY CLEARER SO STOP SAYING STUPID SHIT. WITHOUT A TRAINED, EFFECTIVE MILITARY WE WOULD BE POWERLESS&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU SHOULD RESPECT THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE A JOB THAT OFTEN CALLS FOR THEIR DEATH. THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD RESPECT THEM, NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING CURRENTLY.[/b]




hah.  for some reason I though this topic was titled something about the war in Iraq.  why are you debating other wars?  

I am saying I do not support them in this war...you really went batshit crazy for no reason at all...something that borders on insanity.  





> you constantly fail to see my point that the war in Iraq SUCKS&#33;&#33;&#33; I know that. Our soldiers are killing needlessy and mercilessly. I know that. So stop telling me and answer to my post directly. Prove to me that you are somehow more respectable than a soldier and i will be content. AND NO, YOUR ARGUMENT CANNOT BE THAT YOU DONT KILL PEOPLE NEEDLESSLY. Prove to me that you are more human than someone who has a job that involves constant fear and death. I dont predict you can, because you are NOTHING compared to those brave men and women.
> 
> QUIT BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THEY KILL. EVERY SOLDIER KILLS.
> 
> sorry everybody, but i tried to make it clear i wasnt refering to Iraq. I guess some people are just illiterate or ignorant
> 
> and oh, yea, shark
> 
> I dream of bullets for YOU
> [/b]



very tactfull...you really are just batshit crazy...what the hell? your tring to make me prove to you that I am better than us military men and women? why?  Is this the way american&#39;s usually debate? I doubt it.

and wishing death for me just because I have said something you disagree with?...holy hell&#33; you&#39;re insane.

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





> The Blue Meanie
> 
> you may not believe it, but using the a-bombs in Japan actually saved lives.
> 
> If we didnt use them, we would have fire bombed several cities, and there would be several battles. 
> It is indisputable that the a bomb saved lives. Ask any expert. 
> American casualties would have estimated about 300,000 (well over half of the deaths in the European and African theaters (the total death toll for the USA was roughly 555,000) and Japanese casualties would have numbered over 2 million.
> We did it to end the war, and you better believe the Japanese would have kept fighting WAY past their effective abilities.
> 
> ...




Actually it is cleary disputable that hiroshima and nagasaki saved lives.(just ask an actual expert)  You are refering to the traditionalist theory on this...theres are many more revisionist theories you clearly were never taught at your highschool.  Not only is his main argument not "squashed to jack shit", but you have also proven _once again_  your incredible ignorance.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Alright shark, why dont you show me a expert testimony that says that the bombs DIDNT save lives. Trust me, you wont find anything, unless its some jackass saying so.

Do you honestly believe that less than 200,000 would have died if we invaded Japan. Lets see.

1. The actual amphibious landings of Japan.
2. The battle inland.
3. The battle for Tokyo.

If you know anything about war history, you would know how valiently Japan defended islands like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Midway, and Guadal Canal. How well do you think they would have defended their mainland? To make a statement that deaths would have numbered under 200,000 is ignorant and incorrect. That is coming from experts, not just me. The japaneese from WW2 fought to the last man. It is part of their honor code and ethics.

Does anybody believe what shark is saying........

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> Actually it is cleary disputable that hiroshima and nagasaki saved lives.(just ask an actual expert)  You are refering to the traditionalist theory on this...theres are many more revisionist theories you clearly were never taught at your highschool.  Not only is his main argument not "squashed to jack shit", but you have also proven _once again_  your incredible ignorance.
> [/b]



Indeed.  Considering the highly sensitive and political nature of this issue, there is a suprisingly large volume of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that even BEFORE hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were on the verge of defeat AND, in fact, were already offering surrender.

FOR INSTANCE:

Henry H. Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces himself wrote in his memoirs:

"It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

Also, MONTHS before the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as early in fact as April, the new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki, began taking active steps to seek peace... and the US state department was FULLY aware that the Japanese were seeking to negotiate a surrender.

So, Hominus Feralis, I&#39;m very sorry but... NO.  I&#39;m really not at all feeling my argument has been squashed to jack shit.

----------


## Alric

Well a lot of people actually thought the japanese would fight to the last man. The actual number they believed was well over a million deaths though that may not be right its what most people thought.

Of course they probably did want to test out the bomb. It is kind of sick but people who build stuff like that want to see it in action. Whats the point of having a weapon if you don&#39;t use it?

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Blue meanine and shark

what you are saying is absolutely false. If they were on the verge of defeat they would have given up after the 1st bomb, and not waited for the second. Japanese are know for their persistence, especially in WW2.

Once again, you base your "facts" on absolutely nothing, and in the world&#39;s opinions you are wrong.

By the way, i do not know my knowledge of wars from "what i learned in high school"
Researching the history and details of wars is a hobby of mine.
And i really dont care what you say about that, so dont go posting shit about it.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> By the way, i do not know my knowledge of wars from "what i learned in high school"
> Researching the history and details of wars is a hobby of mine.
> And i really dont care what you say about that, so dont go posting shit about it.
> [/b]



Well, you probably need to buy some history books published since the 60&#39;s then.

READ:

Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe:




> "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of &#39;face&#39;. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
> [/b]




READ:

Admiral william Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman
[quote]
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons
[quote]

READ:

US President Herbert Hoover regarding his discussion with President Truman and General Douglas MacArthur:
[quote]
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
[quote]

READ:
Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State:
[quote]
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
[quote]

Hominus Feralis, for somebody who claims he pursues an active interest in history, you dispalay not only a staggering amount of ingnorance, but even worse, you seem stubborn and closed-minded to even the most direct, incontravertable evidence against your mistaken beliefs.

----------


## Tsen

Great posts, TBM.

To Hominus:

Once again, wrong.

I&#39;m not basing Iraq&#39;s expertise on my own opinion--that is a FACT.  They did not have the funds, the technology, or the necessary experts in the field to enrich that Uranium.  We never found the necessary centrifuges when we went into Iraq, and, trust me, they&#39;d be very difficult to miss.  A centrifuge is a rather large structure, and isn&#39;t the sort of thing you can strap to the back of a truck and drive away.  Not to mention, we NEVER found highly enriched Uranium when we went into Iraq, which is a necessity for a bomb.  We found lots of depleted Uranium, and low-level enriched Uranium, but that&#39;s all.  Even so, it isn&#39;t the sort of thing you just pull out of a hat--Uranium takes a bit of effort to acquire.
So, no, Iraq DID NOT and COULD NOT have had nuclear weapons.  Not when we invaded, not ten years later.
North Korea has the ability to obtain them because they&#39;ve been running nuclear reactors and centrifuges enriching Uranium for several years against the NPT.  They&#39;ve been working at it for SEVERAL YEARS.  Not the last two years, more along the lines of the last DECADE.  Not to mention they have a richer supply of experts in the field.  Not based on an opinion of any sort, this is FACT.
Do your research before you accuse me of spontaneously generating the sort of crap we&#39;ve come to expect from you.

Next; the atomic bomb in Japan.  TBM&#39;s quite right:  Japan was ready to surrender.  They were defeated, and they knew it.  Yes, their pride and reluctance to surrender was getting in the way, but they were undeniably ready to surrender.  
There were two main factors in the US decision to drop the bomb:
ONE-- We wanted unconditional surrender.  We refused to allow the Emperor to stay in power.  Pointless, in my opinion.
TWO-- We wanted to test and simultaneously flaunt our newfound nuclear capabilities, mostly as a deterrent to Russia, who we were already beginning to feel nervous about.  The bombing actually led to the Cold War.

So no, the bomb didn&#39;t save lives.  If anything, it put more lives in danger.  The arms race it engendered led to the current state of things;  The USA has 9,960 nuclear weapons armed and ready to fire, mostly at Russia (we never bothered to reposition their sights after the Cold War) and a few at China, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea and a few other "hot spots" of possible resistance.

Once again, might does NOT make right, and just because we have 9,000 warheads and a semi-democratic nation does NOT make us stable, or any more worthy of owning nukes.  Why do we need them anyway?  We&#39;ve already got Ballistic Missile defense technology, so its not like we need them to ward off threats from other nations.
Of all the nations with nuclear arms--
Britain-We have no reason to nuke them, and vica-versa.
France-Same as Britain.
India-We could intercept any missiles they fired at us, and they&#39;re more likely to fire on Pakistan.
Pakistan-Firing nukes at us would be fruitless and tantamount to suicide.
Russia-Is currently getting along with us quite well.  
China-Can&#39;t successfully get a ICBM past our defenses, and is economically dependant on us.

This leaves the only threat as aircraft-delivered nuclear bombs, or bombs delivered on the ground.  Aircraft aren&#39;t an issue--we have the best Air Force in the world.  
So all we have to do is close the border to Mexico, and deploy ICBM interception technology and we don&#39;t have to worry about nukes.  Without the need to intimidate everybody with M.A.D., we don&#39;t need nukes, so we can disarm.  Better yet, we can sell the ICBM interception to all interested nations, and make the first step in disarming the entire world.
So why do we need nukes?  What gives us the right, but denies it to other nations?

----------


## Howie

Quoting an administarion during and after such an event is like taking memos from post war Iraq in todays war. They are speculative. They are opinions. Granted the list you compiled is admirable.
 *

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div>



> Indeed. Considering the highly sensitive and political nature of this issue, there is a suprisingly large volume of evidence pointing towards the conclusion that even BEFORE hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were on the verge of defeat AND, in fact, were already offering surrender.
> FOR INSTANCE:
> Henry H. Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces himself wrote in his memoirs:
> 
> "It always *appeared* to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of *collapse*."
> 
> Also, MONTHS before the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as early in fact as April, the new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki, began taking active steps to seek peace... and the US state department was FULLY aware that the Japanese were seeking to negotiate a surrender.
> 
> So, Hominus Feralis, I&#39;m very sorry but... NO. I&#39;m really not at all feeling my argument has been squashed to jack shit.[/b]




*It appeared??* As it appeared that Iraq had WMDs?
*Collapse 0r surrender??* A BIg differance.
- We were trying to negotiate a surrender from the time the war began. Seek peace. Of coarse we were. The ENTIRE time.

The USA arranged a meeting with Russian leaders to inform them of the advent of the nuclear bomb -We however stated it as a weapon of extraordinary destructive potential. (little did we know that US spies had already ratted on the details) So your proposal of showing off for Stalin does not seem to add up.

The Japanese surrender at no cost. Even the civilians were ordered to throw themselves into the ocean rather than surrender. (This was their culture. They were not going to change their values because they were loosing.) Hence the reasoning for suicide war planes and submarines. Kamakazies.
They were faced with entire elimination with the nuclear bomb.

They were told to evacuate the city prior to the bombing. They had no belief in such a weapon. So much so that even after dropping the first atom bomb they did not surrender even though given the chance for three days after the initial bombing.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Once again, Howetzer bases his reasonings on fact rather than opinion.  
It is true that Japan would have never surrendered if we didnt use the a bomb.
TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO BE IGNORANT
no contest. If you disagree, you are ignorant. As part of the japanese culture, it is more honorable to stick a knife in your own belly than to surrender.

and yes, blue meanie, your argument as been reduced to jack shit based on fact.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

Howetzer:

If we cannot take as evidence the words of high-placed officials in an administration as evidence of that administration&#39;s thoughts and intentions... where better should we get evidence from?  I get the feeling that you would rather we simply accept the government&#39;s actions and inner workings as unimpeachable.  If this is the case, this is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude.

Japan WAS on the verge of surrender.  The US administration was fully aware of this.  However, the US was DETERMINED to obtain a Japanese surrender on wholly unreasonable terms.  And it was for THIS that they decided to massacre over one hundred thousand innocent civilians.  Japan wished to surrender but maintain face.  The us, in its arrogance, was determined to utterly humiliate the japanese, even if it meant massacring hundreds of thousands of civilians.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

blue meanine

why the hell are you always blaming america first? Let me guess, "its america&#39;s fault that the bombing at pearl harbor happened". Is something WRONG with you? Japan bombed Pear Harbor and killed hundreds of sleeping seamen. But thats beside the fact. Japan was NOT about surrender. You have NO proof that they were, unless you have an exclusive interview with the emperor. You are ignorat and borderline reterded.

If you hate america so much why dont you just leave. GET OUT&#33;&#33; We dont need people like you here. To say that invading Japan would have had less casualties than bombing means you are RETARDED. I dont care what you say. This is just another example of your liberally poisioned brain making stupid comments. Im sorry to say it, but its true. Myself and Howetzer base on facts while you base on opinion. Japan would have defended itself to the last man. No doubt. I have studied battles, like the invasion of france, and i KNOW what would have happened in Japan.  Just look at how many Germans surrendered compared to how many Japaneese surrendered.

You simply turn your head away from facts so you can have another chance to criticize America. 
INVASION WOULD HAVE MEANT DEATH TO MILLIONS. AND FOR THE LAST TIME, IF JAPAN WAS ABOUT TO SURRENDER, THEY WOULD HAVE AFTER THE FIRST BOMB, AND NOT THE SECOND. 

m gettin pretty pissed off mea.



Edit: Oh, my bad, you&#39;re not from America, BUT SKREW YOU ANYWAY. YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BATTLE AND WAR HISTORY

since you say japan would have surrendered, i suppose you say that north is south, and green is blue. Its just not true

----------


## The Blue Meanie

Have you anything coherant to say other than calling me liberal, retarded, un-american and ignorant?  Otherwise, and I hope you don&#39;t mind, I&#39;ll just ignore you and continue this discussion with Howetzer.  For, while I disagree fundamentally with him over this issue, unlike you, he is able to carry an intelligent discussion without flipping off the handle and ranting.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

maybe you should check out the "imagine" tread created by badassbob in the lounge to see why i am the way i am  ::bigteeth::   but i guess this is the only way to get through to you.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

The REASON you have anger management issues is not something that bothers or interests me in the slightest.  You flipped out, and are unable to carry an intelligent conversation without resorting to emotive outbursts and refusal to look at any evidence that could point to anything contrary to what you believe.  Thus, I am done arguing with you.

I am still fully willing to have an intelligent discussion with ANYBODY else, even if their views are diametrically opposed to my own.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

SO WHAT. i bring my emotions into an argument. Does that mean my reasoning is flawed and incorrect? Absolutely not. you go ahead and have your little "sophisticated" arguments while people like me make sense of situations.

Enough said. Japan would have never surrendered and EVERYONE should honor those who risk death in the name of their country, not just america. To tell the truth, i honor the terrorists. They kill themselves frequently for their cause. There is no question that taking your own life is a traumatic experience. Do i believe their cause is just. NO. Do i believe their cause is evil. YES. But they pay the ultimate price to further their cause, and that deserves respect. Just as i dont agree with Americas current war, i honor those who fight and die when following orders, just as the terrorists do.

----------


## Tsen

No, they pay the ultimate price for their cause because they&#39;ve been lied to repeatedly by crooked clergy of the Muslem church who tell them they&#39;ll be rewarded with such-and-such numbers of virgins in heaven.  That&#39;s SELFISH, not honorable.

And I agree with TBM--Howetzer is carrying on a civilized argument, bringing valid points to the table.
You have NEITHER acted civil OR brought up a valid point.

Strikes against you:
-Maintaining that we should be in Iraq, until that got unpopular and you switched to just saying "support our troops"
-Referring to everybody who disagrees with you as "hippies" and various other terms obviously with the intent to create a slur against the entire left wing.  If you hadn&#39;t noticed, TBM and I have avoided making generalizations, stereotypes or insults referring to the right wing.  It&#39;s bordering on embicillic to accuse nearly half of the nation of being idiots.
-Stating that Iraq had nuclear weapons
-Stating that the US stopped development of nuclear weapons
-Arguing that Iraq would&#39;ve nuked the USA or would&#39;ve sold nukes to terrorists who&#39;d nuke the USA
-General ad hominems, attacking the people rather than their points

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> -Referring to everybody who disagrees with you as "hippies" and various other terms obviously with the intent to create a slur against the entire left wing.  If you hadn&#39;t noticed, TBM and I have avoided making generalizations, stereotypes or insults referring to the right wing.  It&#39;s bordering on embicillic to accuse nearly half of the nation of being idiots.
> [/b]



Actually, as somewhat of an aside, in my country I would be considered conservative right-wing in my political beliefs.  Politics in New Zealand are quite radically different from those in the US, and in NZ, whilst we have the same "left vs right" situation, what constitutes the left, and what constitutes the right, are quite different to the US.  Basically in NZ, the "political left" tends towards big-government socialism, high taxation, and state welfare, combined with a very liberal stance on most social issues.  The "Political right" tends towards small government, lower taxation, less social welfare, and usually a more conservative stance on social issues.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

thats what i do best  ::bigteeth::  
and as to muslims: they were not LIED to. it is part of their belief system, and obviously you know nothing about the muslim religion when you say the ONLY reason they kill themselves is to have virgins in "heaven". It is much deeper than that and there are more rewards for muslims that die in the name of jihad than virgins. Obviously all you know about muslims is what you saw in "The Seige".


By the way, i make identical arguments to Howetzer. You choose not to see my arguments because of who i am.

i refer to idiots as those who dont believe that the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs didnt saved lives, and that Sadam was never a threat. I also call those who blame America first idiots.

1. you say it was an IMPOSSIBILITY that sadam would have used nukes or sold them. you know this for sure?
well, i guess you are either sadam or god, because those are the only two that know for sure.

(are you not attacking me when you post these "strikes" against me. According to you, you are no better than myself.)

2.I never said we SHOULD be in Iraq. I simply said Iraq was NOT better of with Sadam, an opressive genocidal maniac, in power. I NEVER said we SHOULD have invaded.

3. You are a hippie

4. Iraq had technology that they were hiding from the UN. My guess is it was nukes because they had uranium. And no, they were not using them for HEALTH reasons, as someone posted earlier.

5. America HAS stopped the quest for LARGER nukes. The nukes we have currently are ALL WE NEED. I admitt defeat on the fact that research hasnt stopped.

There, was that civilized enough for you?

You are obviously a bigot when you say that the Muslim clergy is crooked. 
Look who&#39;s racist now.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> You are obviously a bigot when you say that the Muslim clergy is crooked. 
> Look who&#39;s racist now.
> [/b]



Islam is not a race.  It is a religion.  Calling Tsen racist for his reference to crooked muslim clergy makes about as much sense as calling people racist who refer to child-abusing catholic clergy.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

One more thing about invading Japan

the estimated AMERICAN casualties was 280,000, just in the southern island of Kyushu, not the entire empire of Japan. Who knows how many japanese would have died, but it would have been a LOT more than 200,000

For all those saying Japan was about to give up. Japanese were BUILDING UP THEIR FORCES in preparation for an invasion. Doesnt sound like giving up to me.

You should go to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/peopl.../e_olympic.html for more information.

there, i gave a valid point without attacking anybody.

about the racism thing.

He called me a racist once because i made fun of Brits. Its called IRONY

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> the estimated AMERICAN casualties was 280,000, just in the southern island of Kyushu, not the entire empire of Japan. Who knows how many japanese would have died, but it would have been a LOT more than 200,000
> [/b]



Not only have you resorted to the same sort of speculation which you were earlier accusing me of, but you have even MISQUOTED that speculation to further your own argument.

Here&#39;s the original quote:
"*At least four different opinions* emerged about potential casualties. These estimates for U.S. losses on Kyushu *ranged from as low as 31,000* for just the first thirty days, to a total of about 280,000."

----------


## Hominus Feralis

I still think its safe to say that over 200,000 total deaths would have occurred if we invaded, including American Soviet, and Japanese. And by the way, the key was THE FIRST THIRTY DAYS. Imagine after 2, 3, and 4 months. Now i dare you to refute your statement about Japan being ready to give up. Was that a complete lie or did you actually believe that?

My bad for the misquote  ::bigteeth::

----------


## The Blue Meanie

I&#39;m sorry, but, I fail to see how this has any possible relevance to the current discussion.

How is a casualty estimate of the potential American losses of a possible invasion of Japan, evidence against the likelihood of the negothiation of a surrender between Japan and the Allies?  The two are logically unconnected.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

If you can remember far pack enough (like 3 hours) the discussion was if using the a bombs, which killed about 200,000 people, would have been a lower cost of life than an all out invasion.

Im through arguing with you. Anyone with half a brain can see that invasion would have caused FAR more deaths, civilian and soldier alike, than 200,000. It is indisputable. For the second time, those casualty estimates are for THE FIRST 30 DAYS OF THE INVASION OF THE SOUTHERMOST ISLAND OF JAPAN, AND ITS ONLY THE PROJECTION FROM AMERICAN CASUALTIES. Those numbers have nothing to do with the invasion of the mainland, or the TOTAL amount of deaths on both sides. JUST THE AMERICANS. at the lowest it was 30,000 just in the preliminary invasion. The deaths would have blown past 200,000 within a couple of monts, EASY

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> If you can remember far pack enough (like 3 hours) the discussion was if using the a bombs, which killed about 200,000 people, would have been a lower cost of life than an all out invasion.
> [/b]



It still has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.  I am not for a moment arguing that the US should have INVADED Japan, so, the projected casualties of such an eventuality are totally irrelevant.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

the argument is simple. The abomb avoided the inevitable invation of Japan, therefore saving lives. We are the only ones who used the bomb in history. Yea, and it saved lives. 

Enough

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> the argument is simple. The abomb avoided the inevitable invation of Japan, therefore saving lives. We are the only ones who used the bomb in history. Yea, and it saved lives. 
> [/b]



I am not disputing for a moment that a land-based invasion and occupation of Japan, a country with a high population density, would have been potentially equally, and possibly more, destructive than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That&#39;s not my argument, and it&#39;s beside the point.

----------


## Tsen

Alright nimwit, I&#39;ll give this one more go:

-The invasion of Japan was not necesssary, therefore it doesn&#39;t matter how many lives would&#39;ve been lost.  Japan was forced into an early surrender by the atomic bombs, but if we&#39;d simply continued a naval barricade and cut them off from other nations, they would&#39;ve been forced to surrender.  And your misquote seems to show a good deal of where you get your "facts".  Always going for the dramatic effect, rather than the hard-out truth.  Saying 30,000-280,000 is very different from just saying 280,000.
-America doesn&#39;t need bigger nukes because any bigger and they don&#39;t do any more damage.  It isn&#39;t because we&#39;re some upstanding beacon of humanity--its because we&#39;re already in possession of the "biggest and best", so there&#39;s no point in building bigger.  So instead, we&#39;re building smaller--delivery mechanisms small enough for a backpack or less.  Just for your information, after about 30 megatons, nukes don&#39;t do any more damage because they&#39;re covering too big of a radius.  The effectiveness drops rapidly after that.  Russia developed a 50 megaton once, just to say they could, but it wasn&#39;t amazing compared to other bombs because the added megatonnage doesn&#39;t add a significant amount of damage at that level.  Effectively, America has the biggest nukes possible (or reasonable), so why build bigger?  It&#39;s a non-issue.
-Saying I&#39;m racist for my comment on crooked clergy is idiotic.  Do you actually understand the Moslem religion?  Like, REALLY understand it?  Have you ever TALKED to an Islamic person?  EVER?  Because if you did, you&#39;d find that the VAST majority of Moslems think that what the clergy over there is doing an incredible crime against their religion.  YES, they do say that there are vast rewards, beyond virgins in heaven and whatever, for martyrs.  But that&#39;s for _martyrs_.  The majority of the Moslem religion thinks that suicide bombers in Iraq don&#39;t fit the definition of a martyr--but the clergy just keeps feeding it to them.  I don&#39;t think you understand the issues at all.  (By the way, were you referring to me when you said I&#39;d accused you of being racist against Brits?  Because I don&#39;t recall ever accusing you of that.)

----------


## Hominus Feralis

japan was building up their forces. They were not about to surrender. 

about muslims. I have read the Koran, and in my opinion the terrorists are wrong. The Koran states that any muslim that picks up a weapon is not a true Muslim. What they have been told is misinterpretations. Not lies.

My bad about calling you racist. I think it was Tweak that called me racist against Europeans (caucasian race), which would mean i was racist against myself  ::bigteeth::  

All fun and games

----------


## docKnubis

i have my own theory of the war... 
first lets state the fact that wars cost money
second what got us out of the great depression
a war 
a war that used money
a war that got the economy back up on its feet
possibly the government saw a possible depression and to prevent it went to war
cus wars cost money....
or we went to war cus bush was doing so good at playing  the first command and conqure game ... he thought it was a training sim for the real thing....
.... 
any one play red alert 2  
i have a story for you
on 9-11-01 me and my friends started to play this game and there are missions to destroy the twin towers and the pentagon.... may be iran and iraq played red alert 2 befor 9-11

----------


## shark!

haha yah I destroyed the twin towers in that very same video game.  (btw im thinking the terrorists had psychology degrees or someting...sept. 11 was such an ingenious visual for america and the world. some artists and composers whether crazy or not have even claimed sept.11 was a piece of art.  That may sound crazy...think about itanyways.) ((btw don&#39;t misunderstand I think 9/11 was bad in an ingenious way...and I of course agree it was a terrible thing))

There are other theories on nuking Japan.  Including the reason they nuked Japan was to show the soviet union that america was insane, and the power of their new weapon.  Another theory is that hiroshima and nagasaki were a "commercial" for the military industrial complex, and a commercial for this new nuke product.  Another theory is soviet union would have won in a conventional war on japan if the us had stayed out of it(do you really think the us army cares about dead soviets?).  Your theory is the one the government of america liked best...and probably why they taught it in american highschools...so americans wouldnt grow up knowing they lived in a terrorist state.  I&#39;m not saying any one of these theories is right...Its probably a combination. (there are many many more theories I suggest you research them before claiming that it was only to save lives...

btw sept11 was what 3000 ppl? that pales in comparison to the "state terrorism" of WW1 and WW11 including nagasaki and hiroshima...who are the real terrorists? probably the governments.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

uhhh, shark, umm, how do i put this?.......

PEOPLE DIE IN WARS. that doesnt mean it is terrorism

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> uhhh, shark, umm, how do i put this?.......
> 
> PEOPLE DIE IN WARS. that doesnt mean it is terrorism
> [/b]



Nagasaki and Hiroshima were without doubt acts of terrorism.

Regardless of whether or not you consider the bombings to be neccessary, the bombings were attacks on overwhelmingly civilian targets, for the purpose of generating fear and co-ercing the japanese government to accept the demands of the US.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

well, i guess you would consider all city bombings (non nuclear) terrorist attacks, because a majority of civilians die.

that would mean every country that participated in WW2 that had aircraft terrorist countries.

England- firebombed Germany
USA-lets not get into it
Germany- bombing of London
Japan- bombings in China

so i guess by your logic everyone was a terrorist

----------


## Tsen

Yup.  Ideally, wars should only involve military casualties--or even better, go to the root of the problem and attack the leaders who ordered the military to do what it did.  Attacking civilians is unethical in every possible definition of the term.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> well, i guess you would consider all city bombings (non nuclear) terrorist attacks, because a majority of civilians die.
> 
> that would mean every country that participated in WW2 that had aircraft terrorist countries.
> 
> England- firebombed Germany
> USA-lets not get into it
> Germany- bombing of London
> Japan- bombings in China
> 
> ...



No, Hominus.  You should go back and check my definition of "Terrorism" I gave to Amé.

Most bombings of urban areas during WWII, while they did target areas with civilians, were aimed and damaging the productive and economic areas of the country in order to weaken the war effort of that country.  This, by my definition, is not terrorism.  Total War, definitely, but not terrorism.

Terrorism is the attack of civilian targets, intended primarily to force a country (or people, or organisation) to concede to the attacker&#39;s political demands, and to inflict psychological damage, including fear, on the target populace.

The urban bombing raids of WWII, while they DID contain elements of the above, were primarily aimed at destroying the country&#39;s economic and productive capacity.  And thus, I would not define them as terrorism.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

that was EXACTLY the point of the atom bombings&#33;&#33;&#33;

hiroshima and nagasaki were war development cities. They were bombed because of that aspect, not because of the sheer number of civilians.

Maybe you should research as to why the us gov. chose those two cities.

----------


## Tsen

> Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[47] Major General Curtis LeMay,[48] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[49] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
> 
>     "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[51]
> 
>     "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[51] [/b]

----------


## Hominus Feralis

not according to the Japanese war council, but i guess you know more than they did.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> not according to the Japanese war council, but i guess you know more than they did.
> [/b]



Read:





> *In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.* On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but *Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter."* Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.
> 
> By mid-June, six members of Japan&#39;s Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia&#39;s leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." *On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."*
> 
> *By early July the US had intercepted messages from Togo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, showing that the Emperor himself was taking a personal hand in the peace effort, and had directed that the Soviet Union be asked to help end the war.* US officials also knew that the key obstacle to ending the war was American insistence on "unconditional surrender," a demand that precluded any negotiations. The Japanese were willing to accept nearly everything, except turning over their semi-divine Emperor. Heir of a 2,600-year-old dynasty, Hirohito was regarded by his people as a "living god" who personified the nation. (Until the August 15 radio broadcast of his surrender announcement, the Japanese people had never heard his voice.) Japanese particularly feared that the Americans would humiliate the Emperor, and even execute him as a war criminal.
> 
> *On July 12, Hirohito summoned Fumimaro Konoye, who had served as prime minister in 1940-41. Explaining that "it will be necessary to terminate the war without delay,"* the Emperor said that he wished Konoye to secure peace with the Americans and British through the Soviets. *As Prince Konoye later recalled, the Emperor instructed him "to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity."*
> 
> The next day, July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty&#39;s strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."
> ...

----------


## Tsen

The thing that bugs me most is that you keep saying that we don&#39;t know what we&#39;re talking about, and that we haven&#39;t done our research, but WITHOUT FAIL you ALWAYS wind up being the one who got his facts wrong.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

i believe my proof is fact enough, just as you do. I have found evidence that japan was not about to give up, just as you have found contrary evidence.

Most of the stuff we argue about is hypothetical
If iraq had WMD&#39;s or not. None of us know (and neither did bush  ::bigteeth::  )
if japan would have surrendered
every country in any war being a terrorist nation

Things that are INDISPUTABLE
IF WE INVADED, the fatalities would have been higher than what the bomb did. No argument.
Bush is retarted
Troops should be respected, not their cause.
lucid dreaming is cool
jesus will never have a second coming.
conservatives are war-mongering religious zealots (not true of some of us, though)
liberals are modern day hippies (not true of Leiberman, and others)

There, let this thread be done. Somewhere in the discussion we went from supporting the troops to the Japanese war council. With that being said let us agree to disagree, and just be friends.

I love you guys  ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::   ::bigteeth::

----------


## Howie

> Howetzer:
> If we cannot take as evidence the words of high-placed officials in an administration as evidence of that administration&#39;s thoughts and intentions... where better should we get evidence from?  I get the feeling that you would rather we simply accept the government&#39;s actions and inner workings as unimpeachable.  If this is the case, this is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude.[/b]




Quite the opposite, To your above response.  In similar fashion could you not make the same argument  in that same administration to quantify reasons for making such a monumental decision, as to use a nuclear weapon at that given time?
I wish more people put _some_ trust in their own (elected) administration. Try that method on the biased party against the Bush administration today ... see how far you get.
Hind site is always 20/20. Similar to what we are seeing in todays war, like I see in your argument, Backlash&#33; Post decision arguments and conclusions based again on hind site.
I cant imagine such a device being used for anything less than a last resort.

I believe Hominis Feralis was making the argument, that we can only speculate at this point, that war casualties (for the US) would be far greater than the decision to use the nuclear method.
Though defeated in a military sense, Japan showed no disposition to surrender unconditionally. And Japanese troops had demonstrated time and again that they could fight and inflict heavy casualties even when the outlook was hopeless. Allied plans in the spring of 1945 took these facts into account and proceeded on the assumption that an invasion of the home islands would be required to achieve at the earliest possible date the unconditional surrender of Japan-the announced objective of the war and the first requirement of all strategic planning.

Article 518. Briefing to President Truman.
Page 518




> It would be a fruitless task to weigh accurately the relative importance of all the factors leading to the Japanese surrender. There is no doubt that Japan had been defeated by the summer of 1945, if not earlier. But defeat did not mean that the military clique had given up; the Army intended to fight on and had made elaborate preparations for the defense of the homeland. Whether air bombardment and naval blockade or the threat of invasion would have produced an early surrender and averted the heavy losses almost certain to accompany the actual landings in Japan is a moot question. Certainly they had a profound effect on the Japanese position. It is equally difficult to assert categorically that the atomic bomb alone or Soviet intervention alone was the decisive factor in bringing the war to an end. All that can be said on the available evidence is that Japan was defeated in the military sense by August 1945 and that the bombing of Hiroshima, followed by the Soviet Union&#39;s declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki and the threat of still further bombing, acted as catalytic agents to produce the Japanese decision to surrender. Together they created so extreme a crisis that the Emperor himself, in an unprecedented move, took matters into his own hands and ordered his ministers to surrender. Whether any other set of circumstances would have resolved the crisis and produced the final decision to surrender is a question history cannot yet answer.[/b]



The work of the Interim Committee was completed 1 June 1945, [21] when it submitted its report to the President, recommending unanimously that:

1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.

2. It should be used against a military target surrounded by other buildings.

3. It should be used without prior warning of the nature of the weapon. (One member, Ralph A. Bard, later dissented from this portion of the committee&#39;s recommendation.) 

Are we considered that uncivilized and self serving? Maybe. I hope not.

Prior wars were fought in the battle field. Hitler began to target civilians in is war strategy. Prior to that it was thought of as unthought of. After some time, the US and all their allies began to stoop to the same level.
So I must consider why we targeted a city to detonate this atomic weapon. A demonstration out in the sea would surly gotten our message across. 
The British and others conducted such fierce bombing raids with conventional weapons that caused a devastating effects on Tokyo??  I believe. So fierce that fire storms ensued, giving rise to the notion that these raids had similar casualties for civilians

----------


## Hominus Feralis

Howetzer, i wish i had the same convincing and charismatic speaking (well, more like writing) attributes as you do.

I make points, but since i am so crude noboby listens  ::cry::   ::cry::   ::morecrying::   ::morecrying::   ::damnit::   ::damnit::

----------


## Tsen

Going back a ways, I thought Hominus might appreciate this:





> Scientists are also using DNA-synthesizing techniques to fabricate genetically altered or man-made viruses, and to study the feasibility of creating germ weapons targeting particular ethnicities.[/b]



This is going on NOW.  Like I said, usually these projects are "black" and not open to public knowledge, but this one&#39;s slipped out.  So this takes us back to what gives the USA the right to make viruses targeting specific races here in secret bunkers and labs, but denies that right to Iraq and other nations?

More info on that here.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

just goes to show how stupid humanity is. What will happen in the future is some race will use the weapon, thinking it wont harm them. But in the end it wasnt like they though and ends up killing all of humanity.

Stupid scientists. I dont like their types

----------


## Tsen

Scientists funded and directly controlled by the government.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

OK. By the way that site doesnt look very credible. I doubt, even as stupid as Bush is, that he would try to exterminate a race. You may say he will just because you are a liberal.

Still, if it is true, stupid government.

you know what, Tsen, you obviously dont like america too much. Just go on and move to canada.
The truth is bush is in office and whining about every little thing he does wont get him out. So just deal for a couple more years. 

I cant wait until a liberal gets into office so it will be OUR turn. Conservatives fight dirtier than liberals.

----------


## Alric

Conservatives and liberals, democrates and republicans are all the same thing. They both believe in social security and welfare. They both believe in large government. They both believe in eminent domain. They both believe in having an open border with mexico. They both believe in the patriot act. They both believe in giving large amounts of money in foreign aid. They both believe in large military funding. They both believe in spending money the US government does not have. Neither of them care about the huge deficit and debt of the country. Both are against drugs. Both are for large corpations. Both are for the UN.

People like to bring up minor stuff like abortions and think the two parties are so different but its a joke. At most any laws effecting abortions is going to effect maybe 10% of the population, and probably not even that much. Then stupid stuff like gay marriages.

Everyone is sitting here argueing over the stupid stuff which should be a personal choice anyway, and they are totally blind to the fact that both parties are nearly identical. For every difference theres 10-15 similarities. Just keep believing that your opinion matters. Who cares if you die or your life is ruined, as long as you don&#39;t have to see gay people married your happy right?

----------


## Tsen

I don&#39;t hate America.  I think it f&#39;s up pretty hard now and then, but I&#39;m not about to move to Canada (though, admittedly, I have considered it a few times).  I just want to get America turned back in the right direction.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

atleast your intentions are noble.
Some peole criticize the government just because their side lost.

----------


## Universal Mind

I started coming to this web site partly because I needed to get away from arguing about the recurring necessities of American military conflict.  But I am an addict, so I now say...  Where have I been during this discussion?&#33;&#33;&#33;  

First of all, war sucks.  It REALLY sucks.  You have no idea how much I wish it was never necessary.  If anybody here knows how to have such a world, tell me about it, and I will be the first in line.  However, that is NOT the type of world we live in.  I was a 19 year old student at Ole Miss during the first Gulf War.  I protested it at a campus protest and argued with everybody I knew about the war.  Since then, I have developed a different perspective, and it is because I have seen so much corruption and evil in the world since then.  I now truly believe that some entitities can only be dealt with by way of force.  There is no reasoning with some structures of power.  

The recent war in Iraq was unfortunately necessary because according to the intelligence of MANY governments and our own CIA and our prior administration and our senate, the Hussein regime had WMD&#39;s.  That regime was also terrorist.  They provided fincancial incentives for suicide bombers in Israel.  They shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation.  They took over Kuwait for purely selfish purposes.  They killed thousands of Kurds with WMD&#39;s.  They were genocidal.  The people of Iraq were scared for their lives about whether they might breathe the wrong way.  The Hussein regime tortured people to death and raped people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of dissidence.  They reportedly tried to assassinate one of our former presidents out of pure hatred.  On top of all of this, they called us "infidels" and "Satan".  They were a terrorist government that apparently had WMD&#39;s and hated every bone in our bodies.  After 9/11 and the resulting formation of the Bush Doctrine, which says, legitimately and intelligently, that the U.S. will go after any government that supports terrorism, Iraq was second on our list.  If you think about EVERYTHING I just said, you will see a picture of a government whose continued existence was completely out of the question.  On top of that, they violated the treaty that ended our war with them in 1991 on several counts for 12 years.  They had to go.  

Why are we still there?  Because leaving now would result in chaos that might never be settled.  We have to remain there until things are much more stable.  Democracy in that region is an absolute necessity.  In the long run, as opposed to the short run, a democracy in that area will result in a more civilized and educated society that has less reason to kill innocents deliberately out of nothing but hatred and brainwashing.  Democracies have historically been breeding grounds for more rational people than those who live under oppressive dictatorships.  Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually stabilize after this terrible transition period, and it will influence others in the Middle East to push for democracy.  The confident pursuit of democracy will be a craze that will never die in the Middle East.  That will eventually result in a free Middle East.  That is when the world becomes a much safer place.  Also, the goverments will not fund large scale terrorism such as that which involves WMD&#39;s.  Terrorism with nukes would be the unthinkable, and we are working now to make sure it never happens.  It is out of the question.  

I want to go ahead and address those who will probably say, "Well, the United States kills people.  That&#39;s terrorism."  I am talking about the deliberate targetting and killing of innocents for the venting of rage.  Accidentally killing innocents in the crossfire of necessary conflicts which the innocents have been warned about is very different.  People who don&#39;t understand the moral difference will inevitably be lost when it comes to the war on terror.  There is a huge difference.  And targetting a small number of innocents, as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the well thought out purpose of saving a much larger number and actually being successful at it is also very different .  Blowing up a mall because it appears to be the only way to kill people who are about to blow up the city is justified.  Blowing up a mall because you are pissed off and feel like hurting somebody is completely different.  Don&#39;t you think?  

As for the WWII nukes, the Japanese had been waffling their asses off about being on the edge of surrender.  How long were we supposed to let that continue?  Their crap had resulted in so much killing of our soldiers that we were not going to let them play games and continue it when we knew exactly how to stop it.  We had a plan to END WORLD WAR II, and it worked&#33;  It also made sure the Japanese never tried that crap again.  They have not attacked us since.  They have, however, due to our hold on them in the years after their surrender, become a great country.  

War is sometimes the only way to handle things.  If you know how to erase the need for war from our world, tell us your plan.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

WOW, univeral mind.

You summed up everything i tried to tell people like tsen, the blue meanine, and leo without any cursing, hating, or flaming.

Kudos to you.

I have one FINAL point, and it pertains to the ORIGIONAL point of this thread.

Maybe Sadam wasnt a threat to Iraq. But he was definately a threat to humanity.

Im gonna go ahead and start a thread about Iran and their future
(hominus feralis sees disaster looming on the horizon)

----------


## Universal Mind

> WOW, univeral mind.
> 
> You summed up everything i tried to tell people like tsen, the blue meanine, and leo without any cursing, hating, or flaming.
> 
> Kudos to you.
> 
> [/b]



Thanks.  My first goal in a debate is always to win it in terms of logic regarding the issue.  My style is to make the argument all about logic until I get personally insulted, which happens almost every time.  I then point out that the other person initiated personal hostility that was unnecessary, insult them back, and then go right back to logically arguing what I was arguing.  People who have nothing logical and on point to come back with are going to give you NOTHING BUT personal hostility, and it is easy to point that out to people and make light of their lack of substance.  And if it is somebody who is arguing for "peace and love", you can say, "I was being civil.  Why are you acting like that?  What about peace and love?"  People who use so much hostility in the name of peace are easy to body slam in a debate.

----------


## Tsen

Y&#39;know, I&#39;ve never been able to fault your debate style, Universal.  I must cede that you have some good points, and while I still feel that we oughtn&#39;t have invaded Iraq, I can understand where you&#39;re coming from.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

NOBODY LIKES ME&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; WAAAAAAAAAA&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
*hominus gets depressed and plays russian roulette with himself*

----------


## Universal Mind

> Y&#39;know, I&#39;ve never been able to fault your debate style, Universal.  I must cede that you have some good points, and while I still feel that we oughtn&#39;t have invaded Iraq, I can understand where you&#39;re coming from.
> [/b]



Cool.  Thanks.  People can disagree and still get along.  That kind of climate is the best one for people to learn from each other.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

LETS KEEP THIS THREAD ALIVE&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;  &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

----------


## Tsen

Why?

----------


## Hominus Feralis

cause

----------


## Neruo

For clarity: This post is meant for any pro-war person that can read (so about 50% of them):

Why did you invade iraq again? Do you think it would have happend if 9/11 didn&#39;t happen? Does iraq/saddam have anything to do with 9/11? No. Bush even admitted that once. What are you doing in iraq besides childish revenge and halliburton profits.

I mean sure, afganistan had like 10 terrorists in it, so that was ok to totally bomb to crap. Kind of wierd how there now are 10000 anti-american terrorists there... I wonder why. 

And thanks to the choas in afganistan, it now turned into the biggest source of herion ever. 90% of the world production. Billions of dollars... how much do you think goes to the terrorists? 

But this is about iraq. Have you even been to iraq mr Feranus? No. Neighter have I. But do you know which impression the people of iraq make? They seem not to like america&#33; Oh my?&#33; How weird?&#33; Maybe it was better in iraq before america invaded&#33; 

-

Stop supporting your terrorist goverment, what you don&#39;t see is that fighing terorrism with terrorism only brings forth more terrorists...  I can garuantee you that not invading 2 innocent (yet harsh, but innocent towards you) counties would have saved hunders, thousands of lives. 

America is the true terrorst of the globe. How many innocent people you think died by bombs in afganistan and iraq? Less then the 2000/3000 in the WTC? I think not. I think not.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

AFGANISTAN HAD 10 TERRORISTS IN IT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3  3;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3  3; 

really?

Im sure the taliban and al quadea numbered a LITTLE more than 10 people. More like 10 million.
Both were terrorists groups. And you dont have to blow yourself up to be a terrorist. 
Bin Ladin never blew himself up? Is he a terrorist?

Please refrain from making coments that have no proof, or quite frankly, reason.

America is the terrorist nation of the world? Sounds like jealosy to me.

A terrorist is a person who willing attacks civilians simply because of religion or politics. They mean to strike fear and cause death to a group of people based or bias or racism

America has laser guided bombs. We attack targets only if we have REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT IS AN ENEMY TARGET. We dont just go bombing every building we see or, FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. 
Civilians die in war. It may be injust, but it is NOT terrorism.

Learn the definition of "terrorism" before you just go throwing the word around. 

By the way, neuro, what country are you from?

----------


## Neruo

> AFGANISTAN HAD 10 TERRORISTS IN IT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3  3;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#3  3; 
> 
> really?
> 
> Im sure the taliban and al quadea numbered a LITTLE more than 10 people. More like 10 million.
> Both were terrorists groups. And you dont have to blow yourself up to be a terrorist. 
> Bin Ladin never blew himself up? Is he a terrorist? [/b]



10 was ofcourse a hyperbole. But good question, what is a terorrist? People that are against the US? Wake up, all of europe is against the US. 

10 million people in afganistan terorrist? Out of 28,7 million? I am quite sure that 28 million of them hate america. However there arn&#39;t even 10 million people in afganistan that are likely to blow themselves up. Only males in the age of 17-30 are likely to do that. How can you complain about my numbers when you don&#39;t even have your own ones right?

I think about 5000 people were actually active terorrists in Afganistan. I think the americans killed 3000 of those. So that sums it up to... 10 000 active terorrists in the country. You can&#39;t deny that: The hate against america has grown. I don&#39;t disagree. What if your family of innocent farmers got killed by a &#39;LAZOR-Guided bomb&#39;.

Smart-bombs, like the president is smart yes.






> Please refrain from making coments that have no proof, or quite frankly, reason.
> 
> America is the terrorist nation of the world? Sounds like jealosy to me.[/b]



Really this demonstrates your lack of debating skills. What use is it to try to offend me, when you will only make yourself look like a more patriotistic person. Extreme patriotism is one thing you need for mindless war, look at hitler. 





> A terrorist is a person who willing attacks civilians simply because of religion or politics. They mean to strike fear and cause death to a group of people based or bias or racism
> 
> [/b]



Man you have no idea how that sums up america  :smiley:  

Religion or politics. Most americans are constantly talking about &#39;their great freedoms&#39; (politics) and &#39;God bless america&#39; (religion). America is playing world police. America just blamed all the muslims in the middle-east for 9/11, America does it&#39;s world police on saddam, dictators are bad m&#39;kay, corporations are good m&#39;kay.

America isn&#39;t willing to attack civilians? Why were the bombs dropped before elite troops searched for osama? Isn&#39;t that a bit of a better way? And isreal, your dearest ally, just loves that &#39;one room in a appartment block in wich one hesbolla leader is probably hiding, lets bomb the crap out of it&#39;.







> America has laser guided bombs. We attack targets only if we have REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT IS AN ENEMY TARGET. We dont just go bombing every building we see or, FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. 
> Civilians die in war. It may be injust, but it is NOT terrorism.
> 
> [/b]



Do you have lazer guided bullets too? What about that village that was completely killed, or some family that was murderd by american soldiers. 

And really, what the hell should you hit in a county like afganistan?&#33; All the &#39;terorrists&#39; are civilans themselves. They don&#39;t have tank factories, they just live in a house with their family. Their children. Their grandparents. 






> Learn the definition of "terrorism" before you just go throwing the word around. 
> [/b]



Yes lets do that. 

ter‧ror‧ism  /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/  [ter-uh-riz-uhm] 
noun
1.	the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2.	the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.	a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

1. Violence: So many bombs. Threats: So many &#39;we will hunt down and kill&#39; s.

2. Fear? 

In both the american people: blabla &#39;america might be under attack again&#39; &#39;saddam has and will use his weapons of mass destruction on our great nation&#39;  blabla. 

And in the people in afganistan and iraq, but all that takes is alot of bombs.

3. lol they are actually doing both. They keep their americans scared and willing to fight for &#39;the cause&#39; while overtrowing a government they see as unworthy and substitute their own, that doesn&#39;t work and ends in anarchy (afganistan). 


Man I had no idea that the little dictionary search would work out That well  ::D:  








> By the way, neuro, what country are you from?
> [/b]




Netherlands. I am kind of proud to say that my government sucks, but atleast I could do something about it, and it sucks just about the least of any country in the world.

----------


## Alric

Its pretty much a known fact by now that the "smart" weapons go off target far more often than our government would have us believe.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

not true alric. These days we can hit individual rooms, just by pointing a lazer. Its quite amazing

neuro, american soldiers dont go "murder" entire families just because they feel like it. You need to get your info straight. 

Why does all of Europe hate us? Jealosy in my opinion, even though you wont admit it.

----------


## Alric

Not really. They are actually pretty impressive when tested in ideal situations but have proven to do far worse in actual use in the battlefield. I know they like to hype them up and stuff as being flawless but the fact is we just constantly hear about them hitting the wrong targets and stuff. I know you will probably say thats propaganda comming from iraqis or something but it happens so often we know its true. The US government has even admited it on occasions.

----------


## Hominus Feralis

o yea they&#39;re not PERFECT. nothing really is.

But they do a hell of a better job than carpet bombing  ::bigteeth::

----------


## Tsen

Better than carpet bombing?  Yeah, I&#39;ll give them that much.
But in an actual battlefield situation, they CANNOT hit individual rooms.
Also, do some research--We don&#39;t use laser-guided bombs much.  Shock and Awe was carried out with primarily GPS-guided warheads.  Most of our current weapons use similar GPS technology, though we still do occasionally use laser-guided bombs.  In both cases, though, there is still an element of human error--human error in targeting the laser, or human error in plotting the GPS location.  Either way, it leads to an off-target warhead, and likely ensuing civilian casualties.

----------


## Universal Mind

> For clarity: This post is meant for any pro-war person that can read (so about 50% of them):
> 
> Why did you invade iraq again? Do you think it would have happend if 9/11 didn&#39;t happen? Does iraq/saddam have anything to do with 9/11? No. Bush even admitted that once. What are you doing in iraq besides childish revenge and halliburton profits.



"Why.... again?"  See my post on the previous page, again.  I don&#39;t want to write it again.  

9/11 inspired the Bush Doctrine, under which the Hussein regime had to be overthrown, which it did even before the Bush Doctrine, on many grounds.  We are not there to steal sand for beach resorts in Republican controlled Mississippi and Florida.  We are also not there as a result of any alien conspiracy involving elves of the Illuminati.    

[/quote] I mean sure, afganistan had like 10 terrorists in it, so that was ok to totally bomb to crap. Kind of wierd how there now are 10000 anti-american terrorists there... I wonder why. [/quote]

There are many times more than ten, and they have been there since long before Bush was in office.  The Taliban was a terrorist government that harbored Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden, after 9/11.  Do you really think we should have just let them go about their business?  We even gave them a chance to hand over Bin Laden and avoid overthrow.  Guess what they did with that opportunity.  We are trying to democratize the Middle East to create a safer world in the long term, not just for us.  Those terrorists you are less concerned with than my country want you dead as fried chicken.  Yes, YOU&#33;  We don&#39;t.  We want Europe to be safer in the long term also.  In fact, we want Afghanistan and Iraq to be safer in the long term.  You are trashing people who are dying so that your entire line of descendants can live in a safer world than otherwise.  Please take note of the fact that I do not work for an oil company and that I can read.  

[/quote] And thanks to the choas in afganistan, it now turned into the biggest source of herion ever. 90% of the world production. Billions of dollars... how much do you think goes to the terrorists? [/quote]

Heroin needs to be legalized for that reason, among many others. 

[/quote] But this is about iraq. Have you even been to iraq mr Feranus? No. Neighter have I. But do you know which impression the people of iraq make? They seem not to like america&#33; Oh my?&#33; How weird?&#33; Maybe it was better in iraq before america invaded&#33; [/quote]

No, it was not.  Many of the people of Iraq hate the fact that they are being controlled by foreigners.  I really think that when we leave, and they are left alone with a much, much better government than the one they had under the genocidal, terrorist dictator who put them through shredders in front of their families for breathing the wrong way and used WMD&#39;s on THEM, the people of Iraq will appreciate what we did.  I wouldn&#39;t want Canadian soldiers on every corner, telling me when my curfew is and such.  But I would be thankful to them once that ended, if they stopped the Hussein regime from ruling my country for the REST OF HISTORY.  
-

[/quote] Stop supporting your terrorist goverment, what you don&#39;t see is that fighing terorrism with terrorism only brings forth more terrorists...  I can garuantee you that not invading 2 innocent (yet harsh, but innocent towards you) counties would have saved hunders, thousands of lives. [/quote]

First of all, if my country were "terrorist", there would not be a Middle East any more.  We could turn the Middle East into the world&#39;s biggest sheet of glass inside one hour.  That is a fact.  But we have not done that.  Or have I missed something?  We instead form democracies, use smart weapons, and continue to do so in the face of ungrateful crap from people like you.  Bitch about Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, if you really hate terrorists.  I have not seen you do that yet.  Will you leave a post as passionate as your above one against those organizations?  Seriously.  Show us your passion about that.  Is it there?     

[/quote] America is the true terrorst of the globe. How many innocent people you think died by bombs in afganistan and iraq? Less then the 2000/3000 in the WTC? I think not. I think not.
[/quote]

You are not thinking about the future.  We are trying to prevent terrorist governments from developing nukes and such and giving them to Al Qaeda and such.  Can you maybe KIND OF see where we are coming from on that?  We also know that the nuclear age absolutely depends on getting rid of terrorists dictatorships.  It is a must.  And about the "true terrorist" comment, please tell me why the Middle East still exists when we could solve this whole thing by taking it out before you can even go out to eat and come home.  I would very much like to know your explanation of that.  

Now please bitch about the terrorists I mentioned.  I don&#39;t mean just mention them.  I mean really go off about them with a very passionate, hate-filled post.  Thanks.

----------


## Neruo

First of all, check your post to if you made some errors into it, like this quite annoying qoutation-error you make.





> There are many times more than ten, and they have been there since long before Bush was in office. The Taliban was a terrorist government that harbored Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden, after 9/11. Do you really think we should have just let them go about their business?[/b]



You did. Where is osama? How good did they really look for him? They really didn&#39;t look for osama that well, if they really spend all those billions of dollars on finding him, they would have.

-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm 

There was so much proof allready that iraq had nothing to do with anything. It was long know that saddam hated al-quiada. Experts told the bush administration that, they ignored that, they willingly tied 9/11 to iraq with no prrof whatsoever.

-

Anyhow, thanks to america&#39;s great and proud response you are going to get a lot more of your own civilians killed. Nice work. I wonder what building they will target next. Becouse there will be another attack. 

I could relay alot of bad arguments you made, that probably came out of bush his mouth, and probably then were contradicted by the same person. You were lied to so many times by the bush administation, accept it.

-

Good thing that within my life time america will run out of oil, and will totally plunge into depression. America runs on oil so much more then any other nation in the world. And I don&#39;t think you will be taking the rest of the world with you that much, china and europe will probably carry the world&#39;s economic by then.


--
edit: ahhhhh yes, the terorrists states with nukes. You mean america and israel? You know who is most likely to use a nuke? Israel I think. Why are they allowed to have nukes? Israel bombs flats full of civilians... 

Again, the 2nd US commandement allows armed millitia. But I guess you people don&#39;t care for your old rules about freedom anymore. Lets sign them away like with the patriot act.

----------


## Bonsay

> ...Why does all of Europe hate us? Jealosy in my opinion, even though you wont admit it.
> Civilians die in war. It may be injust, but it is NOT terrorism....
> 
> ...A terrorist is a person who willing attacks civilians simply because of religion or politics. They mean to strike fear and cause death to a group of people based or bias or racism
> America has laser guided bombs. We attack targets only if we have REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW IT IS AN ENEMY TARGET. We dont just go bombing every building we see or, FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS....
> 
> ....neuro, american soldiers dont go "murder" entire families just because they feel like it...
> 
> ... o yea they&#39;re not PERFECT. nothing really is. But they do a hell of a better job than carpet bombing   ....
> [/b]



How is killing civilians in a war different?
How can anyone be jealous of a murdering, killing, terrorizing,... country. 
Are you saying that Afganistan, Iraq cooperated and attacked America by flying planes into buildings because they don&#39;t have an army? Because that&#39;s what you are saying. Remember you didn&#39;t attack "terrorists" you attacked 2 different countries (totaly destroyed them).

I don&#39;t see the funny part in this discussion (   ::bigteeth::   ??), people are dieing.

----------


## Tsen

I know Hominus isn&#39;t around anymore, but I can&#39;t help but post a "Told you so."

While we were all invading Iraq because we absolutely KNEW that they had WMDs, we let N. Korea just have its own run of the field.  Now we&#39;re caught with our pants down--The country we invaded contained no nuclear weapons, or the materials to make them.  Meanwhile, N. Korea just announced its first successful nuke test.

Now, YES, the article does say that it is only  a "claimed" test, and that it hasn&#39;t been validated.  Officially, that&#39;s its status--but I KNOW that there really was a test (or that several world power&#39;s governments suddenly had a simultaneous blunder on a massive scale).  The reasoning is simple--nukes can be picked up on seismographs over most of the world.  The US, China, Japan, Russia and several other nations are all pressuring the UN for sanctions and actions against N Korea at this point, which tells me that they&#39;ve checked with their scientists who confirmed that they picked up evidence of the test.  Otherwise, the US especially would be calling Korea&#39;s bluff.

----------


## Universal Mind

North Korea might be next.  I would rather China go in there and handle them instead.  

We went to Iraq first because of their terrorist history and history of disobeying our 1991 ceasefire, the stated consequence of which was overthrow.  There is no question about the fact that the Hussein government was a terrorist government, providing incentives to suicide bombers in Israel and using WMD&#39;s to kill thousands of their own citizens, and a severe enemy of the United States.  On top of that insane scenario, we were given intelligence that the regime had WMD&#39;s.  That intelligence was given to us by the governments of Britain, Israel, France, China, and Russia, along with the U.N. and our own CIA, Senate, and Clinton Administration.  Bush did not make the claim out of thin air, as many leftists love to claim.  I want to add that not finding WMD&#39;s is not proof of their nonexistence.  This is not stuff to play around with.

The Hussein regime did have ties to Al Qaeda.  They were not friends, but they had a common enemy, which gave them something to work on together.  Zarqawi was harbored in Iraq and treated in a hospital there.  The Hussein regime sent representatives to meet with Al Qaeda.  The link existed.  Cheney and Bush have both said that there is no proof that the Hussein regime was involved in 9/11, but they both stand by the claim that there were ties between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.  Imagine the possibilities of that love affair.

----------


## loveapple

The war in Iraq is a total mess, the invasion was wrong. The people of Iraq seemed to be MUCH worse off than when Saddam was in power. The ill feeling the war has caused has made the extrme Islamic terrorist even more militant. The coalition forces have scored an own goal&#33;

----------


## Universal Mind

> The war in Iraq is a total mess, the invasion was wrong. The people of Iraq seemed to be MUCH worse off than when Saddam was in power. The ill feeling the war has caused has made the extrme Islamic terrorist even more militant. The coalition forces have scored an own goal&#33;
> [/b]



A transition period in such a screwed up place after the overthrow of such an oppressive dictatorship is of course going to be a mess.  But it is the rest of history that this thing is about, not just the first few years after the overthrow.  It is the oppressive conditions of the Middle East that have led to the murder/suicide mentality.  In a democracy, people have things to live for.  That is why it is very important that the Middle East be democratized.  The spirit of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan will live for the rest of history, and it will lead to the spread of democracy all over the Middle East.  

Although the transition of Iraq is something that makes those who already hate us angry about one more thing, at least there is one less government to back the terrorists.  We are also killing off tons of the maggots.  This will pay off tremendously over the course of history.

----------


## loveapple

> A transition period in such a screwed up place after the overthrow of such an oppressive dictatorship is of course going to be a mess.  But it is the rest of history that this thing is about, not just the first few years after the overthrow.  It is the oppressive conditions of the Middle East that have led to the murder/suicide mentality.  In a democracy, people have things to live for.  That is why it is very important that the Middle East be democratized.  The spirit of freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan will live for the rest of history, and it will lead to the spread of democracy all over the Middle East.  
> 
> Although the transition of Iraq is something that makes those who already hate us angry about one more thing, at least there is one less government to back the terrorists.  We are also killing off tons of the maggots.  *This will pay off tremendously over the course of history.*[/b]



I doubt it&#33;

----------


## Tsen

Personally, I don&#39;t understand why Iraq was such a priority issue.  I DO think that getting rid of Saddam should have been on the to-do list, but I think there were several more pressing issues at hand in the world, such as North Korea, who just threatened to fire a nuclear warhead.
I do agree, though, it WOULD be nice if China would at the very least aid us in taking care of this.  I don&#39;t think military action is on the table yet, but with N. Korea waving the nuclear threat around, it&#39;s definitely being considered.

(BTW, the nuclear test has been confirmed by several seismograph locations, mostly in S. Korea now.  Apparently something went wrong with the test--they only got a blast that was under one kiloton)

----------


## Neruo

> I doubt it&#33;
> [/b]



I more then doubt invading iraq was smart. I actually come quite close to saying that it is very improbable that iraq would have been worse without america.

----------


## loveapple

> I more then doubt invading iraq was smart. I actually come quite close to saying that it is very improbable that iraq would have been worse without america.
> [/b]



Being a Brit I do say that Iraq is very much worse now America has got involved. I think it is true to say that most of the British people are against the war, and Tony Blair&#39;s political party is likely to suffer at the next election because of it&#33;

----------


## Bonsay

Has anyone else noticed the transformation of the word terrorist into anyone that is in the middle east with a gun. People forget that terrorists are the ones who spread terror, not islamic people.
And around 500 people die in Iraq every week...   ::blue::  .

----------


## Neruo

> Being a Brit I do say that Iraq is very much worse now America has got involved. I think it is true to say that most of the British people are against the war, and Tony Blair&#39;s political party is likely to suffer at the next election because of it&#33;
> [/b]



Yeah. That blair is a bad man. Funny how in brittian they have the balls to get rid of blair, yet in america they do not have the balls to get rid of bush.

----------


## loveapple

> Yeah. That blair is a bad man. Funny how in brittian they have the balls to get rid of blair, yet in america they do not have the balls to get rid of bush.
> [/b]



We haven&#39;t got rid of Blair yet, he is resigning next year.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Has anyone else noticed the transformation of the word terrorist into anyone that is in the middle east with a gun. People forget that terrorists are the ones who spread terror, not islamic people.
> And around 500 people die in Iraq every week...   .
> [/b]



Who says a terrorist is anybody in the Middle East with a gun?  I don&#39;t know anybody who thinks that.  I want the Middle East to be free.  Anybody who is willing to target the innocent and deliberately kill them in order to stop that is a terrorist and deserves to die.  Don&#39;t you think?  I am glad we are popping off such scum like flies.  

I don&#39;t know where you get your information, but let me assure you...  SOME Islamic people are terrorists.  In fact, a great many of them are.  But I&#39;m sure most of them are not.  Those are the ones we want to have a future of freedom.

----------


## Neruo

> Anybody who is willing to target the innocent and deliberately kill them in order to stop that is a terrorist and deserves to die.
> [/b]



Like America? 600.000 innocent civilians in Iraq allready died. And you would be one of the soldiers that shoots the peasant in the field because he had a dangerously looking shovel, and you would shoot surrendering people. However, I do not fear that... seems very unlikely that the US army is that desperate that they would allow suck mentally unstable and mentally warped people to carry a gun.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Like America? 600.000 innocent civilians in Iraq allready died. And you would be one of the soldiers that shoots the peasant in the field because he had a dangerously looking shovel, and you would shoot surrendering people. However, I do not fear that... seems very unlikely that the US army is that desperate that they would allow suck mentally unstable and mentally warped people to carry a gun.
> [/b]



Why do you always have to be so nasty and personal about this stuff?  I lost track for a little while and acted as though we are in the religion forum.  We aren&#39;t supposed to be rude in this one, so let&#39;s disagree respectfully from now on.  Let&#39;s have peace and love.  What do you say?  The moderators want it that way, so let&#39;s keep the hate speech in the religion forum, where we agree on everything.  

The United States has put a lot into technology specifically made for avoiding as much civilian death as possible.  The Islamofascist terrorists you never speak against are not like that.  If they had the power to blow up the entire United States, they would do it in a second.  We have the power to blow up the entire Middle East.  That is a fact.  If we wanted it to happen, the Middle East could be a black spot on the map before the sun even comes up in the United States.  That is the truth.  But we are not like that.  The terrorists you don&#39;t say much about ARE like that.  And I don&#39;t know where you get the 600,000 figure.  I have seen all kinds of bizarre figures on that from people like you who have such an obsession with my country.  We don&#39;t target civilians.  We even announce to civilians when they need to get out of an area that is about to be attacked.  I encourage you to finally start speaking out against the insurgents, who DO deliberately target Iraqi civilians.  If they weren&#39;t doing that, we would leave the country.  

You need to look harder at the situation and learn who the bad guys really are.  It is so amazing how people will say absolutely nothing about insurgents&#39; blowing up mosques during services but will go off with great rage about Americans&#39; putting underwear on the insurgents&#39; heads.  Can somebody explain that to me?

By the way, Neruo, you just said that American soldiers are terrorists but then turned around and said America would not let mentally warped people carry a gun.  Which is it?

----------


## Tsen

Just a note--the civilian deaths in Iraq is hovering at a little over 40,000, which is well short of that 600,000 figure.
Carry on, then  :tongue2:

----------


## Universal Mind

> Just a note--the civilian deaths in Iraq is hovering at a little over 40,000, which is well short of that 600,000 figure.
> Carry on, then 
> [/b]



Thank you very much for your honesty.  I have so much respect for somebody who can disagree and still be honest.  

A lot of those "civilians" were insurgents.  I deplore the fact that any innocent people at all have died in this thing.  But unfortunately, the future of Iraq and the whole Middle East and even the whole world depends on what is happening right now.

----------


## Bonsay

> Who says a terrorist is anybody in the Middle East with a gun?  I don&#39;t know anybody who thinks that.  I want the Middle East to be free.  Anybody who is willing to target the innocent and deliberately kill them in order to stop that is a terrorist and deserves to die.  Don&#39;t you think?  I am glad we are popping off such scum like flies.  
> 
> I don&#39;t know where you get your information, but let me assure you...  SOME Islamic people are terrorists.  In fact, a great many of them are.  But I&#39;m sure most of them are not.  Those are the ones we want to have a future of freedom.
> [/b]



I don&#39;t think anybody should die. If everybody that thinke like, for example, you ("they must die") just stopped and said no more killing, it would all stop. It&#39;s as simple as that. And I still think that the word terrorist now stands for an person with a gun from the Middle East.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don&#39;t think anybody should die. If everybody that thinke like, for example, you ("they must die") just stopped and said no more killing, it would all stop. It&#39;s as simple as that. And I still think that the word terrorist now stands for an person with a gun from the Middle East.
> [/b]



Well, that is not what a terrorist is.  Do you think the Iraqis who are helping us militarily and with police actions are people we consider terrorists?  They have guns.  So by your reasoning, we consider them terrorists, even though we are arming them and working with them.  Can you explain how that makes sense?  

I agree that if EVERYBODY said, "No more killing," then it would all stop.  But guess what...  Our enemies have no plan of that.  So we have to react.  If we suddenly said it, we would all get killed.  Many of the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are members of organizations who have the very specifically stated goal of completely killing off ALL Americans and Israelis.  That is a fact.  They also want to change the entire world into an oppressive Islamic state.  Don&#39;t think for a second that they don&#39;t hate you with every cell of their bodies too.  They consider you and "infidel" and truly believe that you deserve to die for it.  If you were on the internet arguing with them about what they believe in, they would not be having relatively friendly debates with you about it.  They would be trying to find out who you are and kill you.  I can assure you that you are focussing on the wrong people.

----------


## Bonsay

I&#39;m saying that if someone says there is a terrorist attack in New York, London, Paris,... everybody will think of an arab with an AK-47 a mask over his head and C4 on his body. Eaven would I think of that.
It&#39;s ture what you say mostly. I wouldn&#39;t argue about any religion, I believe the starters of religion meant it to bring peace, happines to the world. But people like to change and use it in other worse ways.  Oh well, people suck and we are all going to die anyway, since noone of is going to change that, it&#39;s just pointless to argue about it.

----------


## loveapple

> Well, that is not what a terrorist is.  Do you think the Iraqis who are helping us militarily and with police actions are people we consider terrorists?  They have guns.  So by your reasoning, we consider them terrorists, even though we are arming them and working with them.  Can you explain how that makes sense?  
> 
> I agree that if EVERYBODY said, "No more killing," then it would all stop.  But guess what...  Our enemies have no plan of that.  So we have to react.  If we suddenly said it, we would all get killed.  Many of the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are members of organizations who have the very specifically stated goal of completely killing off ALL Americans and Israelis.  That is a fact.  They also want to change the entire world into an oppressive Islamic state.  Don&#39;t think for a second that they don&#39;t hate you with every cell of their bodies too.  They consider you and "infidel" and truly believe that you deserve to die for it.  If you were on the internet arguing with them about what they believe in, they would not be having relatively friendly debates with you about it.  They would be trying to find out who you are and kill you.  I can assure you that you are focussing on the wrong people.
> [/b]



The Americans have not made friends in the region by their crass actions&#33; I don&#39;t blame the Iraqis for hating them&#33;

----------


## Universal Mind

> The Americans have not made friends in the region by their crass actions&#33; I don&#39;t blame the Iraqis for hating them&#33;
> [/b]



We have made a lot of friends in the region, not that that is what the war has been about.  A lot of people in Iraq have been with us this whole time.  There are tons of people willingly working in the government we helped set up.  Check out the voting statistics, for one thing.  In time, our help will be very much appreciated by a much higher percentage of the country.  You can&#39;t measure that by a transition period involving occupation.  That is not the measure.

Would you like to see depictions of love and appreciation instead of the ungrateful hatred the media has been obsessed with?  Here is evidence contrary to your generalizations...   

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Y_2Em...t=clnk&cd=4

Imagine how they will be feeling in the distant future.  Remember, this conflict is about THE REST OF HISTORY.

----------


## Neruo

Universal Mind, wether you like it or not, in history books there will be a dark chapter about America&#39;s actions in  this period of time. Unless of course you, like today in North-Korea, by then you American&#39;s will write their own little &#39;totally true&#39; history books.

----------


## bradybaker

History is written by the winner.

----------


## loveapple

> History is written by the winner.
> [/b]



We are in a lose, lose situation where Iraq is concerned. America has made so many enemies all over the world because of their actions in the region that they are fast losing credibility in the eyes of the rest of us&#33;

----------


## Neruo

> History is written by the winner.
> [/b]



In war there are no winner.

-

Well that are enough cool little oneliners for today. America allso claimed to have won in vietnam. Everyone knows america did fuck up in vietnam with the napalm and agent orange and such.

It will be another black page in america&#39;s history, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s own people or the rest of the world will learn something from it.

----------


## Hard as Nails

WOW&#33;&#33;&#33; Did hominis really start all of this? Dang.

Although i havent read all 208 posts, I think i can help a little bit.

We (americans) have this image of a turban wearing, AK 47 wielding, C4 strapping terrorist because that is what an islamofacist terrorist is. You know, most stereotypes are true.

In my worthless opinion, there will never be peace. Most European citizens and many americans have seen the effects of war, so they (I, also) have a strong disposition to war. Islamic fanatics, war hungry Americans and Europeans, and several African "tribes" do not think this way. They see war as means to force influence on others, and, in some cases, to perform genocide.

Despite what America has done in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the civilians we have killed, they (terrorist states, not muslims) brought it upon themselves. This, however, doesnt excuse the American military from killing civilians. But war is war. Civilians die. Tragic, but true. I think the civilian deaths were about 40,000, no? These casualties are extremely low considering we took over the entire country. I thank tomohawk cruise missiles for this.

This is just an irrevelant statement (for anyone who can change stuff on this site). When you banned hominis, a friend in my dorm (who introduced me to lucid dreaming about 5 weeks ago), you disabled anybody in our entire dorm (all 3 floors) from logging onto this site. Now that i am home, i finally get to see the site. I like it, but i cant log in anywhere within a mile and a half from my dorm. If hominis ruined it for everyone else, than that is that. But i wish i could get a reply about this before i go back to college. Thank you

----------


## Nanten

Regarding Iraqi death counts, estimates vary.  At the least, it is 44,803 (according to Iraq Body Count).  _The Lancet_, a British medical journal, estimated about 100,000 in 2004.  _The Lancet_ is the same one that came up with the new study (discussed here), which says that about 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, with a minimum of 400,000.

----------


## loveapple

> Regarding Iraqi death counts, estimates vary.  At the least, it is 44,803 (according to Iraq Body Count).  _The Lancet_, a British medical journal, estimated about 100,000 in 2004.  _The Lancet_ is the same one that came up with the new study (discussed here), which says that about 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, with a minimum of 400,000.
> [/b]



Everyday there is a suicide bombing and general mayhem, so the Lancet&#39; figures are  nearer the truth, I suspect. One would automatically disbelieve any figures given by Bush and Blair&#33;

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> Everyday there is a suicide bombing and general mayhem, so the Lancet&#39; figures are  nearer the truth, I suspect. One would automatically disbelieve any figures given by Bush and Blair&#33;
> [/b]



The suicide bombings and mayhem would cause a minimal number of casualties - the purpose of such attacks is to cause psychological damage, not substantive.

A larger proportion of the Iraqi death toll would likely occur through indiscriminate US bombings.

----------


## Bonsay

> We (americans) have this image of a turban wearing, AK 47 wielding, C4 strapping terrorist because that is what an islamofacist terrorist is. You know, most stereotypes are true.
> Despite what America has done in Iraq and Afghanistan and all the civilians we have killed, they (terrorist states, not muslims) brought it upon themselves. This, however, doesnt excuse the American military from killing civilians. But war is war. Civilians die. Tragic, but true. I think the civilian deaths were about 40,000, no? These casualties are extremely low considering we took over the entire country. I thank tomohawk cruise missiles for this.
> [/b]



I wasn&#39;t saying "islamofacist terrorist", I was saying just terrorist. And I don&#39;t belive you if you say, that you don&#39;t think of a "turban wearing, AK 47 wielding, C4 strapping muslim" when you hear the word terrorist.
Terrorist state, that brought it upon itself? I didn&#39;t see Iraq saying that they would use their none existant weapons of mass destruction against america. They eaven let you have a look. And all you did eaven though you didn&#39;t find the weapons was attack them. And you still can&#39;t find them. That&#39;s why you started making up excuses like Hussein and Bin Laden were working together and so on. The Iraq war is just a lie, to get oil ofcourse.

----------


## Neruo

This weekend, at asome conferention, I heard an US army veteran speak about the war in Iraq. He turned against america&#39;s crimes of invading a country with no grounds and staying in it what clearly made everything worse.

Really, if everyone would hear first hand what is going on in Iraq, we wouldn&#39;t have this discussion. 

-

Everyone, everyone but the American government and some of its blind followers, accept the independed studies that at Least more then half a million people have died in iraq. That is about 2.5% of the Iraq population.

Even the republicans are accepting the war failed (only they will only admit that After the ellections). Total retreat is the only option to ensure as few people possible will die by a futile war with no goal. 

This just all proves that America really didn&#39;t learn from Vietnam.

-

There is no point in this post but to totally rip on America&#39;s government for being such a total retard in to world. But it&#39;s people can make a difference, vote democrat. It still sucks, but it&#39;s a start. (The American soldier actually admitted that america doesn&#39;t have a democracy (even while it is their main export product), and actually the very constitution states that it is a representative republican or something. Not a democracy).

Point is: Vote right, end the killing of hunderds a day.

----------


## Nanten

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Neruo")</div>



> Point is: Vote right, end the killing of hunderds a day.[/b]



Too bad it&#39;s not that simple.  Even if the Republicans do lose the majority in the House and Senate, the Democrats are still very divided on the issue of withdrawal, or at least on when to withdraw.  Hopefully they&#39;ll become unified in favor of a quick withdrawal after they take Congress.

----------


## Hard as Nails

this is hyporcacy you are talking about.

Democrats always whine about how many people are dying bla bla bla, then they want to withdraw. Withdrawing soon would result in more violence and deaths (due to our invasion)

You see, with democrats, its not what&#092;&#39;s smart or right. It&#092;&#39;s about doing everything opposite of what Bush has done. Doesnt that seem to be a recurrent theme?

----------


## Nanten

> Democrats always whine about how many people are dying bla bla bla, then they want to withdraw. Withdrawing soon would result in more violence and deaths (due to our invasion)[/b]



... What?  No.  Iraq is not going to stabilize just because we have troops there.  





> You see, with democrats, its not what&#092;&#39;s smart or right. It&#092;&#39;s about doing everything opposite of what Bush has done.[/b]



You see, what Bush has done is neither smart nor right.  So really, the opposite of what Bush has done *is* smart and right.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The suicide bombings and mayhem would cause a minimal number of casualties - the purpose of such attacks is to cause psychological damage, not substantive.
> 
> A larger proportion of the Iraqi death toll would likely occur through indiscriminate US bombings.
> [/b]



The psychological damage is caused by substantive damage.  And you are just flat out making stuff up when you talk about "indiscriminate US bombings".  Maybe you can find a handfull that happened when people were not following orders correctly, but we are now the best country in history at precision bombing.  Don&#39;t forget that we could turn the Middle East into an enormous sheet of glass with oil refineries all over it.  We are working very hard to do what has to be done with as few civilian casualties as possible.  How do you think the insurgents would behave if they could turn the United States into a sheet of glass?  The insurgent terrorists are targetting civilians.  The Coalition is not.  Insurgent terrorists are MAXIMIZING civilian casualties, while the Coalition is MINIMIZING them.





> You see, with democrats, its not what&#092;&#39;s smart or right. It&#092;&#39;s about doing everything opposite of what Bush has done. Doesnt that seem to be a recurrent theme?
> [/b]



It is their RELIGION.  






> Point is: Vote right, end the killing of hunderds a day.
> [/b]



Withdrawal without full victory would give the impression that we were defeated, which would make the terrorist organizations many times more powerful.  Do you know about how Clinton&#39;s withdrawal from Somalia made Bin Laden feel secure about the 9/11 attacks?  Imagine what a withdrawal from Iraq would lead to.  The full blossoming of democracy takes time, and we will stay for however long it takes to achieve that.  In the mean time, feel free to start claiming that the Coalition has killed 3 billion Iraqis.  Just don&#39;t start complaining about the insurgent terrorists who are deliberately targetting civilians.

----------


## Wolffe

> The psychological damage is caused by substantive damage.  And you are just flat out making stuff up when you talk about "indiscriminate US bombings".  Maybe you can find a handfull that happened when people were not following orders correctly, but we are now the best country in history at precision bombing.  Don&#39;t forget that we could turn the Middle East into an enormous sheet of glass with oil refineries all over it.  We are working very hard to do what has to be done with as few civilian casualties as possible.  How do you think the insurgents would behave if they could turn the United States into a sheet of glass?  The insurgent terrorists are targetting civilians.  The Coalition is not.  Insurgent terrorists are MAXIMIZING civilian casualties, while the Coalition is MINIMIZING them.
> It is their RELIGION.  
> Withdrawal without full victory would give the impression that we were defeated, which would make the terrorist organizations many times more powerful.  Do you know about how Clinton&#39;s withdrawal from Somalia made Bin Laden feel secure about the 9/11 attacks?  Imagine what a withdrawal from Iraq would lead to.  The full blossoming of democracy takes time, and we will stay for however long it takes to achieve that.  In the mean time, feel free to start claiming that the Coalition has killed 3 billion Iraqis.  Just don&#39;t start complaining about the insurgent terrorists who are deliberately targetting civilians.
> [/b]




&#39;Full victory&#39;? What is this victory? Hunting down every last one of them? This is so incredibly idealist. Cuba is still packed with &#39;terrorists&#39;. Large portions of South America is still brimming with them. Ireland until only a few months ago still harboured a fully fledged terrorist organisation. These are right on our doorsteps but we just cater for them. I don&#39;t see any victory over these. The only apparent civillian casualties are on civillians passing through occupied land. When allied forces move out, there will be a very small amount of targets to be attacked. Did Vietnam launch terrorist attacks on the US when the US retreated? Did rogue German troops left over from WWII travel to London and blow up the Houses of Parliament? There is still threat from these &#39;insurgents&#39; but occupying their country only provokes them. The only reason to keep them from doing it over there is because the lives of Iraqi civillians and allied soldiers are apparently not worth as much as Americans.

About their religion; you think these islamics are the only ones that have ever killed in the name of religion? What about the christian crusades? They hunted down pagans, heretics, Muslims, etc etc. They were pretty much the first Nazis, massacring Jews and such.

Their precision bombing may be good, but somehow a 1:10 ratio of military:civillian deaths as a result is still not good. While Saddam was still in leadership, 4,900-6,375 Iraqi troops died, the civillian count  43,850-48,693. Now some of those civillians are going to be death-by-insurgent bombing etc but a majority are going to be bombings, which suggests to me that the bombings were rather inefficient.

----------


## Neruo

> this is hyporcacy you are talking about.
> 
> Democrats always whine about how many people are dying bla bla bla, then they want to withdraw. Withdrawing soon would result in more violence and deaths (due to our invasion)
> 
> You see, with democrats, its not what&#092;&#39;s smart or right. It&#092;&#39;s about doing everything opposite of what Bush has done. Doesnt that seem to be a recurrent theme?
> [/b]



You see, the intire world says you people should do the opposite of what bush is doing, doesn&#39;t that sound like a recurrent theme?

-

Nice fact about Iraq: The second largest force of occupants in iraq isn&#39;t the UK army, it isn&#39;t australia or germany or the Iraq Police, it is blackwater. The corpration. 

How hard do you need troops if you hire mercs? Mercs that, by the way, probably do not have to report back to anyone, so can just do what they like.

Even even with mercs, you still fail @ war. lol.

----------


## shark!

> Even even with mercs, you still fail @ war. lol.[/b]



hah yah...vietnam now iraq...if Iran or North Korea needs to be attacked, America you can just sit the next war out or something.  I mean, for the sake of the rest of the world, we want to win.   :smiley: 
(iguess america did beat japan..but they cheated in that war&#33;  hey even canada could beat japan if they sent some nukes.)






> The insurgent terrorists are targetting civilians. The Coalition is not. Insurgent terrorists are MAXIMIZING civilian casualties, while the Coalition is MINIMIZING them.[/b]



wow congrats. you are better then the insurgents.  Just being better then insurgents doesnt really matter.  and doesnt make what you do good.

anyways if you love America so much...why don&#39;t you marry her? :imagineagrade3emoticon:

----------


## Universal Mind

> &#39;Full victory&#39;? What is this victory? Hunting down every last one of them? This is so incredibly idealist. Cuba is still packed with &#39;terrorists&#39;. Large portions of South America is still brimming with them. Ireland until only a few months ago still harboured a fully fledged terrorist organisation. These are right on our doorsteps but we just cater for them. I don&#39;t see any victory over these. The only apparent civillian casualties are on civillians passing through occupied land. When allied forces move out, there will be a very small amount of targets to be attacked. Did Vietnam launch terrorist attacks on the US when the US retreated? Did rogue German troops left over from WWII travel to London and blow up the Houses of Parliament? There is still threat from these &#39;insurgents&#39; but occupying their country only provokes them. The only reason to keep them from doing it over there is because the lives of Iraqi civillians and allied soldiers are apparently not worth as much as Americans.



Full victory involves getting the Iraqi government to a point where it can manage it all on their own and keep the insurgency down to a level where the country can function and be a successful democracy.  Such a reality would be a phenomenal blow to the future of terrorism from the Middle East. 

[/quote] About their religion; you think these islamics are the only ones that have ever killed in the name of religion? What about the christian crusades? They hunted down pagans, heretics, Muslims, etc etc. They were pretty much the first Nazis, massacring Jews and such.[/quote]

What does that have to do with anything?  Where did you get that I think Muslims are the only people who kill in the name of religion?  I am nowhere near thinking that.  You are preaching to the Pope, so to speak.  I am an atheist, and you should see what all I have to say about religion in general in the religion forum.  You are arguing with the stereotype you assume I fit into instead of arguing with my specific points.  That makes me wonder how much you even bother thinking about them.  

[/quote] Their precision bombing may be good, but somehow a 1:10 ratio of military:civillian deaths as a result is still not good. While Saddam was still in leadership, 4,900-6,375 Iraqi troops died, the civillian count  43,850-48,693. Now some of those civillians are going to be death-by-insurgent bombing etc but a majority are going to be bombings, which suggests to me that the bombings were rather inefficient.
[/quote]

That is not our ratio.  You must have dug up bushissatan.com or some kind of fringe web site to get that.  Also, it is the insurgents who are targeting civilians.  We are not.  We bomb key targets and send warnings to the civilians ahead of time.  Do the insurgents do that?  Also, we do not know how many people Hussein killed.  There was the sarin gas attack on the Kurds and the executions of everybody who was even suspected of opposition, resulting in the mass graves.  The operation was way too secretive for us to know how many people he had killed, and your point ignores the rest of history.  How many innocent people would have been killed if the Hussein regime was never overthrown?  How many in the next 1,000 years?  What if he had finally developed the nukes Israel stopped him from continuing to make?  What if he had sold sarin gas to Al Qaeda?  Imagine it.  This war is about the rest of history.





> wow congrats. you are better then the insurgents.  Just being better then insurgents doesnt really matter.  and doesnt make what you do good.
> [/b]



No, that is not the point.  The point is that we don&#39;t target civilians, as we keep getting accused of doing.





> anyways if you love America so much...why don&#39;t you marry her? :imagineagrade3emoticon:
> [/b]



  ::rolllaugh::    Wow, the same third grade joke on this board twice in 24 hours.  

Besides, I don&#39;t think I have said I love America.  I have justified America&#39;s foreign policy.  It is funny how I say one thing and people assume other things.  You need to let go of the stereotypes in your mind.  However, I do love America.  Without America, I might be some Irish weenie who is jealously obsessed with how powerful Holland is.

----------


## Wolffe

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/#position

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....1-RelatedNews-1


I cant see how a few suicide bombers could possibly take out that many civilians. No one said that he shouldnt have been stopped but this particular way about it was not a good one. Too much time spent protecting the oil fields, not enough time inspecting for WMDs

----------


## shark!

> Wow, the same third grade joke on this board twice in 24 hours.  
> 
> Besides, I don&#39;t think I have said I love America.  I have justified America&#39;s foreign policy.  It is funny how I say one thing and people assume other things.  You need to let go of the stereotypes in your mind.  However, I do love America.  Without America, I might be some Irish weenie who is jealously obsessed with how powerful Holland is.
> [/b]



its almost like you couldnt tell I was kidding?  "However, I do love America." looks like I assumed right anyways.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I cant see how a few suicide bombers could possibly take out that many civilians. [/b]



A few?  That is not even close to correct.  There is almost a constant flow of suicide bombings.  








> its almost like you couldnt tell I was kidding?  "However, I do love America." looks like I assumed right anyways.
> [/b]



Look again for the word "joke".  But I still thought I should set the record straight.

----------


## Wolffe

> A few?  That is not even close to correct.  There is almost a constant flow of suicide bombings.  
> Look again for the word "joke".  But I still thought I should set the record straight.
> [/b]



&#39;Consistent flow&#39; would be better phrasing I think. It&#39;s an average of 4 a month this year. 

Interestingly, when I looked this up, it would appear that there are almost 4x more suicide bombings this year than there were over the previous 3 years put together&#33;

----------


## Keeper

I thought the war was slowing down?

----------


## Neruo

> I thought the war was slowing down?
> [/b]



Haha. No. October was the most violent month in Iraq. And November will probably be even more bloody. After a few years of opression by America (and one or two other countries) the people are just sick of it and are fighting back.

----------


## Keeper

didn&#39;t they plan for this? Why is there still so much trouble?

----------


## Neruo

> didn&#39;t they plan for this? Why is there still so much trouble?
> [/b]



This was America&#39;s plan: 
-We barge into Afganistan, I mean, the Taliban that have been there for a long time might have something to do with 9/11, anyhow we just have to kill some turbanheads for justice.
-We will be greeted with open arms.
-Then we attack Saddam, he also looks like someone that wears like a turban. The public is sure to buy the lies about his ties with al-quadia and the lies about WMD&#39;s.
-We let Dick Chaneys company &#39;Halliburton&#39; make a few billions, get some denefids from the oil there and leave under the joyfull cheers of the people we just freed.

-If that doesn&#39;t work, claim that everything is going fine.

-

The war wasn&#39;t really planned that well. They spend all the time on making up things about how Saddam was tied to Bin Laden (he was not) and how he had WMD&#39;s (he didn&#39;t have them).

-

And still this much? Still? It is only getting worse. There is no sollution but leaving or genocide. And genocide is more a thing of isreal, so they will just run after the elections, or sit there for another 1/2 bloody years.

----------


## Wolffe

> The war wasn&#39;t really planned that well. They spend all the time on making up things about how Saddam was tied to Bin Laden (he was not) and how he had WMD&#39;s (he didn&#39;t have them).
> [/b]



Rofl yeah, after the war is over - &#39;Sorry, he doesn&#39;t appear to have anything to do with them after all and disarmed in 1991, but we only just remembered&#33;&#39;

----------


## Hard as Nails

neuro, the bloodiest month EVER was October 2006? ha

neuro, have you ever heard of Falujha? November, 2004. 5000 insurgents and 92 Americans died in just that city. That doesnt even include the Baghdad. 

The truth is, yes, the war is slowing down. On a great scale. Yes, people are still dying, propbably due to the fact we havent even taken over the whole country yet. I give it 2 or 3 years untill complete peace. But so is war.

----------


## Wolffe

> The truth is, yes, the war is slowing down. On a great scale. Yes, people are still dying, propbably due to the fact we havent even taken over the whole country yet. I give it 2 or 3 years untill complete peace. But so is war.
> [/b]



Where&#39;s the proof for this? Talk about a sweeping statement. The war is over, but the deaths are increasing which blatantly shows the opposite:

----------


## The Blue Meanie

> Where&#39;s the proof for this? Talk about a sweeping statement. The war is over, but the deaths are increasing which blatantly shows the opposite:[/b]



Nails said that?  Man, dense.  The War in Iraq and the causalties, both american and Iraqi, are intensifying so much and so fast that America is goign to have to pull out.  Nails, that&#39;s something which even the American ADMINISTRATION has acknowledged&#33;

----------


## Universal Mind

> Haha. No. October was the most violent month in Iraq. And November will probably be even more bloody. After a few years of opression by America (and one or two other countries) the people are just sick of it and are fighting back.
> [/b]



"Fighting back"?  That is what you call what insurgent terrorists do when they deliberately target civilians and blow them up in mass numbers?  And liberation is not oppression.  The government you think should have remained in power engaged in oppression.  The future of Iraq will be much greater than it would have been under the terrorist, genocidal, oppressive dictatorship you wish had remained.  

Arguing with you was fun when I thought you actually believe the things you say.  Your last few posts were just a bunch of bizarre things you pulled out of your ass.  Then again, I can&#39;t argue with the fact that we went into the nightmare we call war with Hussein just because he wore a turban and was therefore automatically a terrorist.  I also agree that not finding WMD&#39;s is proof that they never existed, and that the meetings between Al Qaeda and a suicide bombing government that was reported by six governments to have WMD&#39;s is no cause for alarm.  But I am still honored that my country is so significant in your life.






> didn&#39;t they plan for this? Why is there still so much trouble?
> [/b]



Nobody thought that Iraq could be turned into a rose garden over night.  A lot of the Iraqis very much appreciate what we are doing, and a lot appreciate it more than they are willing to admit during an occupation, which I would not like either.  The problem is the Islamofascist fanatics who are coming from all over the Middle East.  But the more of them we kill, the better.  In a few years, things will be much more peaceful, but the ultimate vision will still have a long way to go.  In a matter of decades, Iraq will be a much better, much healthier, much more successful and stable country.  This war is about the rest of history.

----------


## Wolffe

> "Fighting back"?  That is what you call what insurgent terrorists do when they deliberately target civilians and blow them up in mass numbers?  And liberation is not oppression.  The government you think should have remained in power engaged in oppression.  The future of Iraq will be much greater than it would have been under the terrorist, genocidal, oppressive dictatorship you wish had remained.  
> [/b]




They are targetting military and opposing religious areas

A liberation isn&#39;t an oppression, but this isnt a liberation, it&#39;s just what they&#39;re calling it. Emotive language &#39;n&#39; all that






> Nobody thought that Iraq could be turned into a rose garden over night.  A lot of the Iraqis very much appreciate what we are doing, and a lot appreciate it more than they are willing to admit during an occupation, which I would not like either.  The problem is the Islamofascist fanatics who are coming from all over the Middle East.  But the more of them we kill, the better.  In a few years, things will be much more peaceful, but the ultimate vision will still have a long way to go.  In a matter of decades, Iraq will be a much better, much healthier, much more successful and stable country.  This war is about the rest of history.
> [/b]




Slightly hateful in places but the other parts are true. "This war is about the rest of history." I believe this is just wishful thinking on Bush&#39;s part. Like getting men on Mars while he&#39;s still in presidency

----------


## Universal Mind

> They are targetting military and opposing religious areas
> 
> A liberation isn&#39;t an oppression, but this isnt a liberation, it&#39;s just what they&#39;re calling it. Emotive language &#39;n&#39; all that
> Slightly hateful in places but the other parts are true. "This war is about the rest of history." I believe this is just wishful thinking on Bush&#39;s part. Like getting men on Mars while he&#39;s still in presidency
> [/b]



I do admit that I am extremely hateful against the suicide bombing schmucks who are keeping us in Iraq, trying to stop Iraq from getting anywhere as a free country, and who want me and you dead.  Yes, I hate them with a passion, and I am not out of line for feeling that way.

----------


## Hard as Nails

peace will come, sooner or later. No faction can stand up to the US military. Not even the scores of suicide bombers. After years of fighting, they will succumb. Either that or they will be all dead. And i dont feel any sorrow for them

Contrary to some peoples&#092;&#39; beliefs, we are not running out of troops. Not even close. We can keep up this campaign against terrorism up as long as we need to. And we will, as long as democrats are kept out of the white house. A democratic president would do exactly what Clinton did after the Mogadishu incedent in Somalia. Cut and run. The terrorists, just like the North Viets., will see that as a victory on their part. &#092;"Defeating&#092;" the worlds strongest army would empower them, and we would see an entire new era of terrorism. Do you think that if we just gave up things would calm down? Terrorists dont think like that. They will use our withdrawal to their advantage. This is why we cannot afford to leave the Middle East yet.

----------


## Keeper

but the problim is, the american people are tierd of this. they want it to end, and soldiers are also people.

what is to stop them fro just giving up on this?

----------


## Wolffe

> but the problim is, the american people are tierd of this. they want it to end, and soldiers are also people.
> 
> what is to stop them fro just giving up on this?
> [/b]




&#39;Bush&#39;s stubbornness is certainly a factor, as he&#39;s only just repeated his intention &#39;to stay there and win this thing&#39;. The fatal flaw is that there&#39;s nothing to win. The insurgents want the americans out. The americans cant leave til the insurgents stop. Its a vicious circle, which is possibly why Bush wants them to &#39;win it&#39;, since they can do pretty much whatever they like while they&#39;re still there. I mean forces are still all over Afghanistan, but for what reason? They&#39;ve pretty much set up permanent camp, but the government and security forces are perfectly capable.

----------


## Hard as Nails

Bush is not stubborn. He just dug himself into a shit-hole that he cant get himself out of. Everything went wrong when we didnt find the WMDs in Iraq. That made everyone hate America more than the terrorists themselves. Thats just illogical.

But as i said, withdrawing from the Middle East now would end in utter chaos and widespread death, especially with the high tension levels involving North Korea and Iran. If we just leave, nukes will go from the hands of the North Koreans to the Iranians, and finally to Hezbollah. They will not think twice about using them on Israel.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Everything went wrong when we didnt find the WMDs in Iraq. That made everyone hate America more than the terrorists themselves. Thats just illogical.
> [/b]



It really is interesting how that works.  The war was about many things, but the WMD problem was at the top of the list.  Many people act like it was the only issue.  We got the WMD intelligence from Russia, China, Britain, Israel, France, and the United Nations.  But nobody is pissed at any of them.  Isn&#39;t that odd?  Even the Clinton Administration and Democrats in the Senate, such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, said that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD&#39;s and strongly favored going to war over it, but I have yet to hear one American liberal bitch about any of them, though they will scream all day about how Bush supposedly "lied about WMD&#39;s".  That is just insane.

Furthermore, not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed.  The next time I lose my car keys, should I not bother to look for them because they automatically never even existed?  That is such strange logic.  Also, WMD&#39;s have been found in Iraq.  They were just WMD&#39;s that many said are so old they are not effective.  What we have also found is evidence that the regime was working on developing more WMD&#39;s.  That alone was justification for the overthrow, among other justifications.  Suicide bomber governments and WMD&#39;s don&#39;t mix.

----------


## Wolffe

> It really is interesting how that works.  The war was about many things, but the WMD problem was at the top of the list.  Many people act like it was the only issue.  We got the WMD intelligence from Russia, China, Britain, Israel, France, and the United Nations.  But nobody is pissed at any of them.  Isn&#39;t that odd?  Even the Clinton Administration and Democrats in the Senate, such as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, said that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD&#39;s and strongly favored going to war over it, but I have yet to hear one American liberal bitch about any of them, though they will scream all day about how Bush supposedly "lied about WMD&#39;s".  That is just insane.
> 
> Furthermore, not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed.  The next time I lose my car keys, should I not bother to look for them because they automatically never even existed?  That is such strange logic.  Also, WMD&#39;s have been found in Iraq.  They were just WMD&#39;s that many said are so old they are not effective.  What we have also found is evidence that the regime was working on developing more WMD&#39;s.  That alone was justification for the overthrow, among other justifications.  Suicide bomber governments and WMD&#39;s don&#39;t mix.
> [/b]




That&#39;s why plagiarism is bad. You pretend you know lots of stuff, but when you can&#39;t explain it, it makes you look like a fool  :tongue2:  "We KNOW that Iraq has WMDs" etc. I read about the old useless weapons left from the first war, but not that there was evidence of development, can you find a source for that?

----------


## Universal Mind

> That&#39;s why plagiarism is bad. You pretend you know lots of stuff, but when you can&#39;t explain it, it makes you look like a fool  "We KNOW that Iraq has WMDs" etc. I read about the old useless weapons left from the first war, but not that there was evidence of development, can you find a source for that?
> [/b]



Intelligence regarding a suicide bomb government with WMD&#39;s reported by five other governments, the U.N., and your previous administration is not a simple matter of plagiarism.  It is profoundly significant, and acting on it is not only legitimate, but the only wise option.  

Here is one link on WMD development evidence...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081300530.html

This is a Wikipedia article about Iraq&#39;s very probable nuclear ambitions... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera

Such stuff is beyond serious.

----------


## pinkminx

> Alright, lets see......
> 
> REBUILDING A COUNTRY TAKES TIME JACKASSES. If we left now there would be a civil war, and even more people would die. 
> 
> Liberals are gonna come one here and say, there would be no furture civil war if we never attacked. No, there would be a crazy dictator with a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Now the liberals would say "they never found any nuclear bombs, waaaaaa, waaaaaaaaa". No, but we found uranium, a necessity for nukes. But no,no let me guess, he wasnt using them for nuclear bombs to kill people. Why would sadam do that? He was actually using it to power a flux capacitor for his time machine made out of a Dolorian so he could go back in time to win the first Gulf War&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#  33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
> 
> So, what do you think the uranium was being used for. Leo, i await your response
> [/b]





actually, Doc Brown used *plutonium*.  Plutonium generated the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to power the flux capacitor.  

Get your facts straight.   geez&#33;

----------


## sephiroth clock

Saddam sucked, and commited horrible atrocities even though he did have the country more under control than we do.

It&#39;s great that we got rid of Saddam, but the whole planning of the operation SUCKED, utterly. Credit to Donald Rumsfeld. We&#39;ve also commited atrocities, and killed about as many civilians with our "smart bombs" and what not. It&#39;s like we wanted to take out the Eifel Tower and bombed all of France.

and guess who has profited the most from all of this, Haliburton Cheney&#39;s defense company stock has risen enormously from the war in Iraq. Meanwhile our debt increases 20,000 every second, were nine trillion dollars and debt and China is buying all of our war bonds. Basically the whole operation has been poorly executed even if we had just intentions.

----------


## Wolffe

> Saddam sucked, and commited horrible atrocities even though he did have the country more under control than we do.
> 
> It&#39;s great that we got rid of Saddam, but the whole planning of the operation SUCKED, utterly. Credit to Donald Rumsfeld. We&#39;ve also commited atrocities, and killed about as many civilians with our "smart bombs" and what not. It&#39;s like we wanted to take out the Eifel Tower and bombed all of France.
> 
> and guess who has profited the most from all of this, Haliburton Cheney&#39;s defense company stock has risen enormously from the war in Iraq. Meanwhile our debt increases 20,000 every second, were nine trillion dollars and debt and China is buying all of our war bonds. Basically the whole operation has been poorly executed even if we had just intentions.
> [/b]



Historians might consider it one of the great cock-ups of all time, in the future&#33;

----------


## Neruo

You people heard about the rape/murder thingy an American soldier did? He raped some girl, killed half her family and set her on fire to &#39;hide the evidence&#39;.

It is allmost hilarious, as war tends to be.

----------


## Wolffe

> You people heard about the rape/murder thingy an American soldier did? He raped some girl, killed half her family and set her on fire to &#39;hide the evidence&#39;.
> 
> It is allmost hilarious, as war tends to be.
> [/b]



I posted an Extended Discussion topic on it :3

----------


## Neruo

> I posted an Extended Discussion topic on it :3
> [/b]



Yeah great work.

I just wonder why Universal Mind doesn&#39;t have a reply right now...

----------


## Wolffe

> Yeah great work.
> 
> I just wonder why Universal Mind doesn&#39;t have a reply right now...
> [/b]



Because he&#39;s so outraged about it being an elaborate democrat hoax, that he&#39;s marching off to congress to defeat them right now&#33;  :tongue2:

----------


## Neruo

> Because he&#39;s so outraged about it being an elaborate democrat hoax, that he&#39;s marching off to congress to defeat them right now&#33; 
> [/b]



lol I can just see it... universal mind barging in the senate or house or whatever the democrats won recently, wielding a shield that is made from a cardboard-lifesieze-bush and a lance that is an american flag with &#39;Iraq&#33; We came to bring freedom&#33; catch&#33;&#39; on the tip of the pole.

Anyhow. 

War... let the people like bush and cheney fight the war themselves for once. But not like they don&#39;t allready know they don&#39;t Want to fight in a war, Ever.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I just wonder why Universal Mind doesn&#39;t have a reply right now...
> [/b]



The only interest I have in this conversation is with the fact that my name was brought up.  You are talking about what three soldiers might have done.  If they did it, I hope they hang them by their balls and melt plastic on them before they are thrown in a hole and left there forever.  Oh, and then maybe they could even be so vicious as to put underwear on their heads and take a picture.  That last thing is torture, right?  

We have 130,000 soldiers in Iraq.  There has never in history been a population of 130,000 that didn&#39;t have some criminals in it.  Can you name one city with that population or greater that doesn&#39;t have a jail?  Using this situation as one more excuse to insult the United States is just lame.  

Did you hear about that time those Amsterdam residents raped somebody and killed some people?





> It is allmost hilarious, as war tends to be.
> [/b]



I majorly disagree with you on that.

----------


## bendstringz

Stop killing people.If humanity put as much effort into loving each other as they do hateing each other we may have alredy had a new world.think about everyone who was murderd through out history.Now wonder how many of those pople were geniuses and could have changed the world.is sensless,but it will continue until the dawn of the new world

----------


## Universal Mind

> Stop killing people.If humanity put as much effort into loving each other as they do hateing each other we may have alredy had a new world.think about everyone who was murderd through out history.Now wonder how many of those pople were geniuses and could have changed the world.is sensless,but it will continue until the dawn of the new world
> [/b]



You sound just like I did when I was in college.  What you need to understand, in my opinion, is just how  incredibly monstrously gigantically enormous your "if" is.  We will have to evolve into a new species for that if to become a reality.  It is like saying that if lions would stop killing gazelles, they could all live together in wonderful harmony.  It is out of the bounds of nature.

----------


## The Blue Meanie

^^Yeah, I actually agree with you there, Universal.  That "If"" is almost as utterly stupid as the ridiculous commonly-cited argument for communism... "If we all worked together for the common good"  ::shakehead2::

----------


## Wolffe

> We have 130,000 soldiers in Iraq.  There has never in history been a population of 130,000 that didn&#39;t have some criminals in it.  Can you name one city with that population or greater that doesn&#39;t have a jail?  Using this situation as one more excuse to insult the United States is just lame.  
> [/b]



But there are 2 problems due to this. 

Firstly, the final justification by the US government was the liberation of the people from oppression and torture... not going well there.

Number two was if this were the case, getting troops out of their before the splinter cells give a bad name to the coalition forces should be no. 1 priority if the coalition want to get out of this with as much justice as possible

----------


## Neruo

> Did you hear about that time those Amsterdam residents raped somebody and killed some people?
> I majorly disagree with you on that.
> [/b]



It actually were fullblown soldiers that appeared to have (less extreme then americans) tortured people. That just proves that war makes people total retards (or at least bigger ones)  :smiley: 

And sometimes it is good for certain people see that a war has no winning side, only soldiers (and civilians) and governments. The soldiers and the civilians allways lose someway or another.

----------


## Universal Mind

> It actually were fullblown soldiers that appeared to have (less extreme then americans) tortured people. That just proves that war makes people total retards (or at least bigger ones) 
> [/b]



Those soldiers were retards before they even joined the military.  

It is impossible to have a group of 130,000 people without there being some retards in it.  






> But there are 2 problems due to this. 
> 
> Firstly, the final justification by the US government was the liberation of the people from oppression and torture... not going well there.
> 
> Number two was if this were the case, getting troops out of their before the splinter cells give a bad name to the coalition forces should be no. 1 priority if the coalition want to get out of this with as much justice as possible
> [/b]



If you compare that incident to what the rest of history in Iraq would have been like under the last regime, this isolated incident looks like a trip to Candyland.  Things go wrong in wars, but that does not prove that the overall goal will never be met.  

The goal of having a police force is to reduce crime.  Finding one incident of police corruption does not prove that we should not have cops.





> ^^Yeah, I actually agree with you there, Universal.  That "If"" is almost as utterly stupid as the ridiculous commonly-cited argument for communism... "If we all worked together for the common good" 
> [/b]



Great analogy.  I find myself making the same sort of point to people who promote communism.  An argument supporting communism almost always starts with the word "if".  It reminds me of an old saying...  If Aunt Martha had balls, she&#39;d be Uncle Fred.

----------


## Moonbeam

> You sound just like I did when I was in college.  What you need to understand, in my opinion, is just how  incredibly monstrously gigantically enormous your "if" is.  We will have to evolve into a new species for that if to become a reality.  It is like saying that if lions would stop killing gazelles, they could all live together in wonderful harmony.  It is out of the bounds of nature.
> [/b]



Lions cannot conceive of not killing, but people can.  Just the fact that people can, makes it possible.  Humans have freed themselves from the bounds of nature in many ways, so it is not inconceivable that we could be peaceful as well.  Not likely, I admit, but not inconceivable.

----------


## Keeper

there are stories of lions looking after other animals, and of cats protecting mice.

animals arn&#39;t always violent.

----------


## Hard as Nails

true. all animals are not always violent. What about man? We are just domesticated animals.

----------


## Wolffe

> true. all animals are not always violent. What about man? We are just domesticated animals.
> [/b]



I reckon it is theoretically possible for everyone to be, but I guess there&#39;s always 1 that won&#39;t conform in practice, which is why we have yet to achieve it

----------


## Neruo

I read in this &#39;Psycology&#39; maganize that murderers are often &#39;misunderstood&#39;, what kind of people they are. Mass murderers arn&#39;t really crazy, as some people think. Allmost everyone can turn one, all you have to do is put in those people brain that _it has a goal._  The german nazi&#39;s that killed a few hunderd thousand, they had some feeling of &#39;ah, I don&#39;t like doing this&#39;. But in the end, they tought &#39;but hey, I am making the world a better place&#39;. By killing jews nevertheless, but still. If you can make people think an action has a (higher) goal, you can make them &#39;mindless killing machines&#39;, but actually they are not mindless, they just see it in a way that barging into a house in the middle of the night, shooting the woman, raping the children and taking the men to guantanamo bay is making the world a better place.

----------


## Wolffe

> I read in this &#39;Psycology&#39; maganize that murderers are often &#39;misunderstood&#39;, what kind of people they are. Mass murderers arn&#39;t really crazy, as some people think. Allmost everyone can turn one, all you have to do is put in those people brain that _it has a goal._  The german nazi&#39;s that killed a few hunderd thousand, they had some feeling of &#39;ah, I don&#39;t like doing this&#39;. But in the end, they tought &#39;but hey, I am making the world a better place&#39;. By killing jews nevertheless, but still. If you can make people think an action has a (higher) goal, you can make them &#39;mindless killing machines&#39;, but actually they are not mindless, they just see it in a way that barging into a house in the middle of the night, shooting the woman, raping the children and taking the men to guantanamo bay is making the world a better place.
> [/b]



Yeah, if enough respectable people tell you something is right, you take it for granted. This is why you should never take anything someone says without thinking about whether it is actually moral/right or not.

----------


## Neruo

> Yeah, if enough respectable people tell you something is right, you take it for granted. This is why you should never take anything someone says without thinking about whether it is actually moral/right or not.
> [/b]



One should allways question everything. Also, people sometimes forget there ar no absolutes (people especially forget this on racial matter &#39;oh, all people form the middle-east are terrorirsts&#39 :wink2: .

----------


## Keeper

> One should allways question everything. Also, people sometimes forget there ar no absolutes (people especially forget this on racial matter &#39;oh, all people form the middle-east are terrorirsts&#39.
> [/b]



One of these days I am going to proove to you there is absolut truth

... but anyway ...

Yes, it is very stupid for people to steriotype like they do.

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you can make people think an action has a (higher) goal, you can make them &#39;mindless killing machines&#39;, but actually they are not mindless, they just see it in a way that barging into a house in the middle of the night, shooting the woman, raping the children and taking the men to guantanamo bay is making the world a better place.
> [/b]



Oh no&#33;&#33;&#33;  Neruo from the Netherlands somehow decoded the official U.S. Military policy (as proven by the fact that a few soldiers out of tens and tens of thousands did it)&#33;&#33;&#33;  

Neruo, will you be my logic tutor?  I can pay you in wooden shoes.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Ok,
where to begin
well my views o nthe war
Well first let&#39;s examine the legal aspects of the war
a breach of Resolution 1441 meant that the Security council would be forced to resume discussions
however, China, Russia, France and partly Britain all agreed that the resolution did not condone the use of force
Article 2, Number 4 of the UN Charter, "All Members shall refrain... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..."
Discussions never resumed in the council
the U.S just attacked Iraq
so first things first the war is illegal
and as such Mr Bush is a murderer and should be tried along side Mr Hussain
That appears only logical

Second thing, 
Reasons for attacking Iraq

1. Weapons of Mass destruction

Well fristly the US has WMD and I cant see a single more unstable nation than the US
Raging into wars on a regular basis?
Also, have these weapons been found
NO
therefore number one objective is crossed out, yes?
Side note - If Saddam did ahve chemical weapons it was because the US supplied them to him, when they needed him to attack Iran
but thats a whole differnt story isnt it?

2. Removal of dictator Saddam Hussien
ahhh we come to ur old ally, Mr Hussain
Dont think for one moment I support or should I say supported is sadistic regime
however
since when did the US become the world policemen
where were the worlds policemen in the Rwandan Genoicide
I&#39;ll tell you where
they went to police the event
one American solider was killed
they left
Why?
I&#39;ll tell you why, because Rwanda is not a country rich in oil
The US saw no gain in placing a puppet government in Rwanda, no economic benift so thereofre they didnt bother helping out
lazy police force eh?
and by the way, there was one thing Saddam was remarkably good at
controlling the masses of extreemist muslims in Iraq
his Baathist Party detested Islamic extremism and saw it as a thereat to his rule
he feared an Islamic revolution
he supressed Islamic fundemnetlaism with an Iron Fist
more than the US are managing eh? Sectarian violence is ripping the country to shreads.
Saddam was a ruthless dictator who killed plenty
but he was not a tenth as efficent as Mr Bush - good old Bush eh?
"Saddam is killing his own people, lets go bloody do it for him"

Saddams crime was against the Iraqi people
Mr Bush&#39;s crime is against the Iraqi people

Murder is acceptable if its done in large numbers to the sound of trumpets with flags waving and called liberation

pah liberation
You ask the Iraqi orphans if they feel liberated


Can you tell me who Sir Anthony Eden is?
Upon reading this msot of you will have immediately thought of the Suez Crisis for which he is remeberd
few people know what political achievments he won
However, they shall always remeber him as the fool that brought about the Suez Crisis
Mr Bush and Tony Blair are doomed to the same fate
History shall judge them better than me or you

Imran

----------


## Universal Mind

Imran,

The war was not illegal.  It was just not U.N. supported.  The U.N. drafted the treaty that ended the 1991 war with Iraq.  Under that treaty, the stated consequence of the Hussein&#39;s noncompliance was overthrow.  They finally got it after 12 years of schmuckery, although the organization that drafted the treaty turned its back on the situation.  

1. Yes, we allied with the Hussein regime against Iran, just like we allied with the Soviet Union in World War II (Doing so was necessary to stop the Nazis from taking over the world with a fascist police state and wiping out all non-whites, crippled, sick, and opposition in the entire world.  Think about that with vivid visualizations when you are trying to go to sleep tonight.).  That does not mean we supported all they did.  We even considered going to war with the Soviet Union the moment WWII ended.  Enemies often team up.  That is why the meetings between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda were insanely frightening, especially after six governments and the U.N. reported the existence of the WMD&#39;s in Iraq.  Do you see that part of the problem?  

If the United States was the terrorist nation you claim we are, the Middle East would be a gigantic sheet of glass with oil refineries with American flags all over it.  Are you going to claim that we couldn&#39;t make that happen in a matter of days?  Now, what would Al Qaeda do if they had the power to blow up the world repeatedly?  What would the Hussein regime have done with it?  And please tell me about the times the Hussein regime or one of the other supposedly less scary bodies played a major role in saving the world.  

2. The inability to find something is not proof that it never existed.  If it were, there would be no point in ever looking for anything for more than a brief moment.  As I said, that intelligence was reported by six governments and the U.N.  Were they all in on a practical joke?  

Rwanda was having meetings with Al Qaeda, supporting Hamas, providing financial incentives to suicide bombers, and violating our ceasefire on several terrorism grounds for 12 years?  If not, then how exactly did they violate the Bush Doctrine that was established in response to 9/11 and the existence of large organizations that have dedicated their lives to their stated goal of making Americans extinct?  

The war happened for many reasons.  You are arguing them one at a time and assuming that each one could stand alone as justification.  That is fallacious.  

You cannot judge the rest of the history of Iraq by the problems that exist in an inevitable transition phase that comes right after a long period of dictatorship oppression.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

France, Russia, China and Britain stated that this treaty did not justify the use of force without further discusions in the Security Council, the US trampled all over the UN, the UN was shwn to be useless in response to US power
this the way we got the second War
with a soft League that got trampled by powerful nations
Without a strong UN we will be reduced to World War again, the US must understand it is not outisde the boundaries of International Law.

Lets just pick one argument of yours out
the U.S is not a terrorist stare because it has not wrecked the destruction within its capabilties
that doesnt matter
its terrorism is guarded, because it must be seen as a just state
how can you argue that the Iraq war is not terrorrism, its people have sufferd
America has kileld countless civillians with its bombs
not terrosism?
oh no i forgot, those dead kids ahve jus been liberated haven&#39;t they?
the only place a terrorist is truly safe is sitting in a suit in the white house
Saddams trial - well hes bein tried for the gassing of the kurds yes?
when this event actually took place, the US government was pro- Saddam and therefore they couldnt have it seem that they were siding with a mass murderer
so what did they do?
they blamed the Ayatollah for these crimes
iran was held responsible
if you dont bleive me i wil ltrack down documents the US government pulblished to this effect
They are accusing 2 differnt ppl of the same crime&#33;
On the topic of iran, I assume you know about the last Shah and his infamous secret police SAVAK, which the US firmly supported. 
The US government are often not the actual terrosists but thos funding and supporting the terror
Israel is a particualr example
its disgusting bbombardment of Lebanon
supported by the one and only imperalist Unit States of fuckin America.

Saddam is gone
No weapons ahve been found
wot on earth are you still doing there
obviously your puppet government isnt strong enough to stand on its own 2 legs yet.

Imran

----------


## Neruo

Go imran_p.

Universal Mind, I see how you can not totally hate your government for how lieing they are, how kleptocratic they and how they don&#39;t give a shit about human life, both their own soldiers and Iraqee civilians.

----------


## Hard as Nails

neuro and imran, if the US wasnt hard on terrorists, who would be? The Dutch? England? I think not. Terrorists would run free in every country and blow up whatever they wanted.

The truth is the other goverments are too big of pussies. They are afraid to fight fire with fire. We live in a dog eat dog world, and not punishing terrorists of ALL kinds will just empower them. 

Frankly, i am sick and tired about the topic of civilian deaths. Countless? Actually around 50,000. Not even 1/4 of those were from US bombs. You fail to see that most of those deaths are from the suicide bombers, not American bullets.

One of these days, all of you who are currently bitching about the US will be kissing our asses for help....should we offer it? We have seen no gratitude.

US troops found uranium in Iraq. I dont care if it was depeleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium is an EXTREMELY easy process, and can be done with household products.

The final truth is, we are the best country to police the world. Other countries in power would just attempt to take over the world. England has done it. France has done it. As well as Russia and Germany. We are the best, and the most controlled. WE protect you, wether you want our help or not. We are also extremely elemental to the economies of your counrties.

Sometimes the truth hurts, i know. 

But i do concede. We HAVE fucked up in Iraq. Im sure even Universal Mind will agree with me. But it was necessary. It WAS elemental to stopping terrorism.

We are not terrorists. We could have just carpet bombed the entire country.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

Your argument is so flawed
the Iraq war was not based on eliminating terrorism
in fact it bolstered terrorism
as i have alredy popinted out
Iraq was stable when it came to Islamic extremeism
Saddam was ruthless when it came to Islamic fundemtalists
they posed a threat to his rule, he feared an Islamic Revolution just like in Iran
The USA&#39;s best frends in Iraq now are the Islamic Councils
and the suicide bombers are a direct reults of American intereference and disruption.

and i oppose not just American foreign Policy
but msot of the Wests constant intevention in the East

Imran

----------


## Wolffe

> neuro and imran, if the US wasnt hard on terrorists, who would be? The Dutch? England? I think not. Terrorists would run free in every country and blow up whatever they wanted.
> [/b]



They do. Most of south America is packed with them, but do you do anything about them?





> The truth is the other goverments are too big of pussies. They are afraid to fight fire with fire. We live in a dog eat dog world, and not punishing terrorists of ALL kinds will just empower them. 
> [/b]



No, you&#39;re just apparently too ignorant (literal sense) to see that every other government is as tough on terrorism as the US.







> Frankly, i am sick and tired about the topic of civilian deaths. Countless? Actually around 50,000. Not even 1/4 of those were from US bombs. You fail to see that most of those deaths are from the suicide bombers, not American bullets.
> [/b]



I&#39;ve already posted a list of statistics of suicide bombings. There are about 3 - 7 suicide bombings a year so far. I can&#39;t see 3 - 7 killing 50000 civilians, nor 5000, nor 500, probably not 50 either.






> One of these days, all of you who are currently bitching about the US will be kissing our asses for help....should we offer it? We have seen no gratitude.
> [/b]



One of these days, gung-ho Americans like you are gonna get the rest of the US in a lot of trouble, and we&#39;ll then see who&#39;s kissing ass.






> US troops found uranium in Iraq. I dont care if it was depeleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium is an EXTREMELY easy process, and can be done with household products.
> [/b]



Damn right, cant let any other country use nuclear power incase they turn it into weapons, via MAGIC&#33;  ::o: 






> The final truth is, we are the best country to police the world. Other countries in power would just attempt to take over the world. England has done it. France has done it. As well as Russia and Germany. We are the best, and the most controlled. WE protect you, wether you want our help or not. We are also extremely elemental to the economies of your counrties.
> [/b]



So you think you&#39;re controlled? Look at the state of your HOME police force and tell me you&#39;re in a fit state to police the world.






> Sometimes the truth hurts, i know. 
> [/b]



Just try to grin and bare it then






> But i do concede. We HAVE fucked up in Iraq. Im sure even Universal Mind will agree with me. But it was necessary. It WAS elemental to stopping terrorism.
> [/b]



Do we have to point out again that there were absolutely NO links to Al-quaeda. It was only terrorist in the original sense of the word. The sense in which may be applied to the American government in a similar manner.






> We are not terrorists. We could have just carpet bombed the entire country.
> [/b]



How compassionate of you to restrain.

----------


## Hard as Nails

alright wolffe, we can play that game.

I have lived in south Ameirca all my life. I have NEVER seen terrorists, besides the KKK (which is basically dead). You are stereotyping southerners. Please stop.

No government is as tough on terrorism as we currently are. See: Afghanistan.

3-7 SUICIDE BOMBINGS A YEAR&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Hehe, i got a good chuckle out of that one. My dads friend, a collonel in the Army, just got back from Iraq. Needless to say, he begs to differ with you. Please dont spew lies like that and try to pass them off as fact.

I will NEVER kiss European ass. Only home-grown southern American ass. 

Sadam had uranium for nuclear power? I suppose he is also a humanitarian, by your logic. HE SITS ON OIL FIELDS. He has all the power he needs. But nooooo, hes a good guy  ::shakehead:: 

We are talking about our foreign policy, not our home police force. And yes, we are controlled here. I take pride in the fact that i can call a man a derogatory term without being arrested. I would rather have higher crime rates than limited rights. 

Need i remind you that Al-Quaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. Sadam was a terrorist with terroristic ambitions. This war was about terrorists, al-quaeda or not.

We are terrorists, huh? We are not the instigators. We are the reactors. Terrorists attack without purpose. We do not.

There we go. Care for a rebuttal?

----------


## Universal Mind

Hard as Nails said it all when he said that we could have just carpet bombed the place.  What do we do instead?  We use precision bombs and set up a democracy, despite the outrageous lack of gratitude we recieve in return and the extreme controversy we have to put up with.  Would Al Qaeda have handled things that way?  Get real.  We are still in Iraq because the new government is not ready to handle things on its own.  And the war is not about making Iraq a rose garden over night.  It is about making Iraq a stable democracy for the rest of history.  Enemy governments that support suicide bombings cannot continue to exist on this planet when WMD&#39;s are getting so easy to access.  We can&#39;t take even the slightest chance with that stuff.  You can&#39;t just ignore the possibility of suicide bomber governments with nukes.  

If we were terrorists, we would own this planet.  I rest my case.

----------


## Hard as Nails

exactly, universal.

many of the anti-war people are thinking too much about now. Currently, this war is about the future of the middle east.

They do not understand. They do not know why we waged this war. All they see is civilian casualties and the death toll, not the potential greatness of Iraq. But let them cry. Let them pout. You and I understand what Hussein would have done in the future.

----------


## Wolffe

> Hard as Nails said it all when he said that we could have just carpet bombed the place.  What do we do instead?  We use precision bombs and set up a democracy, despite the outrageous lack of gratitude we recieve in return and the extreme controversy we have to put up with.  Would Al Qaeda have handled things that way?  Get real.  We are still in Iraq because the new government is not ready to handle things on its own.  And the war is not about making Iraq a rose garden over night.  It is about making Iraq a stable democracy for the rest of history.  Enemy governments that support suicide bombings cannot continue to exist on this planet when WMD&#39;s are getting so easy to access.  We can&#39;t take even the slightest chance with that stuff.  You can&#39;t just ignore the possibility of suicide bomber governments with nukes.  
> 
> If we were terrorists, we would own this planet.  I rest my case.
> [/b]



Except that would make you worse than the Nazis, and the rest of the world would have carpet bombed you and thought none-the-less of it. Your &#39;Enemy governments&#39; epitomises the Right-wing American government. They&#39;re the reason people have dislike towards America recently, and the reason these terrorists don&#39;t like you either. You&#39;re corrupted by your own ludicrous assuptions and ideals, that you actually believe them, even though they&#39;re vague predictions of the future.






> _Originally posted by &#39;Hard as nails&#39;_
> *
> alright wolffe, we can play that game.
> 
> I have lived in south Ameirca all my life. I have NEVER seen terrorists, besides the KKK (which is basically dead). You are stereotyping southerners. Please stop.
> 
> No government is as tough on terrorism as we currently are. See: Afghanistan.
> 
> 3-7 SUICIDE BOMBINGS A YEAR&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Hehe, i got a good chuckle out of that one. My dads friend, a collonel in the Army, just got back from Iraq. Needless to say, he begs to differ with you. Please dont spew lies like that and try to pass them off as fact.
> ...




Just cause you personally can&#39;t see any, it doesnt mean they arent there. Cuba has been a lose cannon for god-knows how long, and just search &#39;Terrorists in south america&#39; and take a look at that. The US isnt the only place either. The UK has a terrorist organisation right on its doorstep too. They do NOTHING about it. 

Suicide bombing stats, a little higher than I guessed though; 11 and a quarter suicide bombings a year

There are your stats. Slightly more objective facts than some boastful hick back from war, I&#39;d imagine (no offence to him)

You think they&#39;re the only ones who use that oil?&#33; They can&#39;t sell oil to the rest of the world AND use 100% oil power. There isnt a developed country in the world that doesn&#39;t seem to have nuclear power. 

No, this war wasn&#39;t about terrorists. It was about invading a country that apparently had weapons they weren&#39;t meant to have, support for al-quaeda, etc. and oh dear, they didn&#39;t after all. You were the instigators, and went against the people who knew best.

Terrorists have more purpose than the US did invading Iraq, wouldn&#39;t you say? They have aims, deep beliefs in what they are trying to achieve, and from their perspective, they are more heroic than anyone in US history (Unless you wish to include fictional characters)

I&#39;m talking about corrupt cops at that point. Just look a few of those terms up on YouTube. The corruption in some states is so bad, we hear about it on the news over here. You can insult whoever you like pretty much anywhere else. It&#39;s nothing unique to America.

----------


## Neruo

> neuro and imran, if the US wasnt hard on terrorists, who would be? The Dutch? England? I think not. Terrorists would run free in every country and blow up whatever they wanted.[/b]



Kind of silly, that you didn&#39;t care at all about &#39;terrorism&#39; about 6 years ago. Your government actually cut on the anti-terrorism instance of your country. America isn&#39;t hard on terrorism, they are bombing a country. Two countries actually. That isn&#39;t the way to stop terrorism.





> The truth is the other goverments are too big of pussies. They are afraid to fight fire with fire. We live in a dog eat dog world, and not punishing terrorists of ALL kinds will just empower them. [/b]



Haha, hilarious. Honestly, can you tell me that there is less hatred against america then 6 years ago? Get real man.





> Frankly, i am sick and tired about the topic of civilian deaths. Countless? Actually around 50,000. Not even 1/4 of those were from US bombs. You fail to see that most of those deaths are from the suicide bombers, not American bullets.[/b]



Alot were from American bombs, and all are indirectly caused by America. I mean it, go it iraq, witness the democracy that will not happen there for the next manyyears. Want to make a bet? I bet you 250 dollar that Iraq will not have a peacefull democracy in the next 5 years. 





> One of these days, all of you who are currently bitching about the US will be kissing our asses for help....should we offer it? We have seen no gratitude.[/b]



What should Iraq say? Thanks for the bombs and the civial war? And I am afraid that the people in your country need help more then people in europe do. Look at the people that got washed away by catrina. In europe such a thing wouldn&#39;t happen, we would actually help black people. Get democracy and humane behaviour your own country first.





> US troops found uranium in Iraq. I dont care if it was depeleted or not. Reinrichment of uranium is an EXTREMELY easy process, and can be done with household products.[/b]



Maybe it was enriched uranium ammonition that isreal shoots with? Saddam had no nukes and didn&#39;t plan to make it. Al qaudia is hardly active in Iraq, about 2% of the forces that fight there are what you call &#39;terrorist&#39;. And they don&#39;t have bombs to.





> The final truth is, we are the best country to police the world. Other countries in power would just attempt to take over the world. England has done it. France has done it. As well as Russia and Germany. We are the best, and the most controlled. WE protect you, wether you want our help or not. We are also extremely elemental to the economies of your counrties.[/b]



lolz. Just lolz. If you lived in russia during the cold war, you would have praised russia. However, you can&#39;t compair aincient history with what happens today. France and england tried for wolrd domination hunderds and hunderds of years ago. America isn&#39;t planning for real world domination, however they are planning on economical world domination. They don&#39;t want the land or people of the world, just their recourses.





> Sometimes the truth hurts, i know. [/b]



If you want truth, don&#39;t listen to your countries media, go talk to some people that teach at universities, or talk to iraq veterans. Talk to iraqees. Talk to every country in the world but America and isreal. Talk to the people that did the independend study that resulted in a 600.000 death count of iraqees.





> But i do concede. We HAVE fucked up in Iraq. Im sure even Universal Mind will agree with me. But it was necessary. It WAS elemental to stopping terrorism.[/b]



hahahaha. Stopping terrorism. If the civil war in iraq sets, I know what country they will hate most.





> We are not terrorists. We could have just carpet bombed the entire country.
> [/b]



You kind of did. And you allie isreal still is carpet bombing palestina. The people of your country thinks they are the good guys, you government is actually past that, and know they are total assholes.

Yet you don&#39;t see.

Really, about that bet, 250 dollar if iraq is a democracy in 5 years?

----------


## Indecent Exposure

America has never wanted democracy
i have plenty of examples of there betrayal of democracy
think of  Congo and Patrice Lumumba
I tihnk i spelt that wrong =)
think of the recent election of hamas ,legitatemetly, and then the cut of aid
think of Dr Mossadeq
Imran

----------


## Neruo

> America has never wanted democracy
> i have plenty of examples of there betrayal of democracy
> think of  Congo and Patrice Lumumba
> I tihnk i spelt that wrong =)
> think of the recent election of hamas ,legitatemetly, and then the cut of aid
> think of Dr Mossadeq
> Imran
> [/b]



Oh yes, there are ceveral documented cases of CIA sabotaging a certain government they don&#39;t like. A communist got ellected? Lets blame some bombings on him, and have a huge usa-funded smear-campaign.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Except that would make you worse than the Nazis, and the rest of the world would have carpet bombed you and thought none-the-less of it. Your &#39;Enemy governments&#39; epitomises the Right-wing American government. They&#39;re the reason people have dislike towards America recently, and the reason these terrorists don&#39;t like you either. You&#39;re corrupted by your own ludicrous assuptions and ideals, that you actually believe them, even though they&#39;re vague predictions of the future.
> Just cause you personally can&#39;t see any, it doesnt mean they arent there. Cuba has been a lose cannon for god-knows how long, and just search &#39;Terrorists in south america&#39; and take a look at that. The US isnt the only place either. The UK has a terrorist organisation right on its doorstep too. They do NOTHING about it. 
> 
> [/b]



Uh, we have enemy governments.  Wake up.  Is that really news to you?  Do you actually want to argue that we don&#39;t have any enemy governments?  Please do.  I&#39;ve got to see this.  

We have the power to blow the world up repeatedly, and the fact that the Middle East is not a bunch of American oil refineries on a glass desert is proof that we are not terrorists.  We could do it and get away with it just fine.  Nobody has the power to come here and carpet bomb us.  They would be splinters in the air before they ever got the chance, and their countries would be made of ashes before the splinters even fell to the ground.  If we were terrorists, you wouldn&#39;t even dare say this stuff on the internet.  The idea that a country that has the power to blow the world up many times over is terrorist but walks on its tippy toes to spread democracy to the Middle East when it could take over the place in 30 minutes and blast away anybody who has a problem with it is just retarded.  

Be careful when you call the United States terrorist.  Don&#39;t give our future officials any ideas.  Our becoming an actual terrorist country is your worst nightmare.

----------


## Moonbeam

> Be careful when you call the United States terrorist.  Don&#39;t give our future officials any ideas.  Our becoming an actual terrorist country is your worst nightmare.
> [/b]



Our officials have had these ideas for a long time, and we have already been many peoples&#39; worst nightmares.

Recommended reading:  "Rogue State" by Willliam Blum, 3rd ed.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Our officials have had these ideas for a long time, and we have already been many peoples&#39; worst nightmares.
> 
> Recommended reading:  "Rogue State" by Willliam Blum, 3rd ed.
> [/b]



I agree that it sucks that civilians inevitably get killed even in wars that are necessary.  I hope we can eventually have no enemies so this war stuff can end forever.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I agree that it sucks that civilians inevitably get killed even in wars that are necessary.  I hope we can eventually have no enemies so this war stuff can end forever.
> [/b]



I&#39;m not just talking about war, but about "peace-time" government activites too.  These "enemies" are often an economic threat, not a physical one, therefore only necessary to those whose wallets are being attacked.

----------


## Indecent Exposure

aye aye
econmoic reasons
e.g. the removal of Dr. Mossadeq
why did they do that?
he natiolanized the  countries oil
=D
Imran

----------


## shark!

> I&#39;m not just talking about war, but about "peace-time" government activites too.  These "enemies" are often an economic threat, not a physical one, therefore only necessary to those whose wallets are being attacked.
> [/b]




hows this for an economic reason? A man/conspiracy theorist/writer talked at school today.  He claims that the war in Iraq is to control China&#39;s oil supply.  China _will_ overtake america maybe by about 2040 with the biggest economy.  Some ppl think america doesn&#39;t want to be number 2.  They don&#39;t want another world super power.  And Iraq was a ploy to control this next superpowers oil.  And of course oil runs everything.  so yah anyways iraq failed in everyway and especially in this plan.  So instead America is forming alliances around CHina...giving military tech to india, u.s. generals meeting in vietnam, bases closer to china in japan..working with mongolia etc.  of course this won&#39;t stop china...but america thinks they have to try something, they are just going through the motions so to speak.  anyways thats quite the plan if its true. idk if i agree that  its actually happening..what do you think? americans controlling the next superpower&#39;s oil? plausible? maybe america really does like to spread democracy?

----------


## Universal Mind

> hows this for an economic reason? A man/conspiracy theorist/writer talked at school today.  He claims that the war in Iraq is to control China&#39;s oil supply.  China _will_ overtake america maybe by about 2040 with the biggest economy.  Some ppl think america doesn&#39;t want to be number 2.  They don&#39;t want another world super power.  And Iraq was a ploy to control this next superpowers oil.  And of course oil runs everything.  so yah anyways iraq failed in everyway and especially in this plan.  So instead America is forming alliances around CHina...giving military tech to india, u.s. generals meeting in vietnam, bases closer to china in japan..working with mongolia etc.  of course this won&#39;t stop china...but america thinks they have to try something, they are just going through the motions so to speak.  anyways thats quite the plan if its true. idk if i agree that  its actually happening..what do you think? americans controlling the next superpower&#39;s oil? plausible? maybe america really does like to spread democracy?
> [/b]



I used to think that the war in Iraq is about sand and towels for Bush&#39;s beach state governor friend and brother.  But today when I was on 30 hits of acid and listening to The Dead Milkmen, I figured out the real reason.  Bush is building a landing strip for gay Martians.  Don&#39;t you know what the queers are doing to the soil?

----------


## Hard as Nails

WOW, universal. That must have been some low-grade acid. And you should probably stay away from whatever it is you are on now.

yeeeaaaa, about this thread. All of our bickering isnt gonna do anything. It is all up to the one true power. Of course, i am refering to the jackass George W. 

But come on, shark. This isnt about China. Presidents tend to think about the future of their presidency, not the future of the world. I doubt W is doing this so we can have an edge on China in 2040.

But who knows......maybe this is just a plot to stop the flying spaghetti monster from devouring the precious oil he needs to survive. I cant disprove it.

ahhhhh, you gotta love conspiracy theories.

----------


## Wolffe

> Uh, we have enemy governments.  Wake up.  Is that really news to you?  Do you actually want to argue that we don&#39;t have any enemy governments?  Please do.  I&#39;ve got to see this.  
> 
> We have the power to blow the world up repeatedly, and the fact that the Middle East is not a bunch of American oil refineries on a glass desert is proof that we are not terrorists.  We could do it and get away with it just fine.  Nobody has the power to come here and carpet bomb us.  They would be splinters in the air before they ever got the chance, and their countries would be made of ashes before the splinters even fell to the ground.  If we were terrorists, you wouldn&#39;t even dare say this stuff on the internet.  The idea that a country that has the power to blow the world up many times over is terrorist but walks on its tippy toes to spread democracy to the Middle East when it could take over the place in 30 minutes and blast away anybody who has a problem with it is just retarded.  
> 
> Be careful when you call the United States terrorist.  Don&#39;t give our future officials any ideas.  Our becoming an actual terrorist country is your worst nightmare.
> [/b]




You misinterpretted my use of &#39;Terrorism&#39;. I said the original meaning - A government controlling its country via terror. There is not even the tiniest chance that the rest of the world would let you get away with that. Also, &#39;the idea that a country that has the power to blow the world up many times over is terrorist&#39; is such a stupid statement. The modern use of &#39;Terrorist&#39; doesn&#39;t mean &#39;mindless and pointless destruction of everything&#39;. I doubt there is a terrorist in the world that would want to blow up the world.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You misinterpretted my use of &#39;Terrorism&#39;. I said the original meaning - A government controlling its country via terror. There is not even the tiniest chance that the rest of the world would let you get away with that. Also, &#39;the idea that a country that has the power to blow the world up many times over is terrorist&#39; is such a stupid statement. The modern use of &#39;Terrorist&#39; doesn&#39;t mean &#39;mindless and pointless destruction of everything&#39;. I doubt there is a terrorist in the world that would want to blow up the world.
> [/b]



How would the world not let us get away with it?  What the Hell would they do about it?  Commit suicide? There is no way around the fact that if we were terrorists we would have blown the entire Middle East to shreds and taken it over.  

You are wrong in assuming that there are no terrorists who want to blow up the world.  There are lots of them who would do that in a second if they could.  They would think that they are killing ALL of the infidels while sending the true Muslims straight to Heaven as the murderer of humanity gets rewarded by virgins.  It&#39;s an Islamofascist&#39;s wet dream.  The outwardly stated mission of several terrorist organizations is to kill ALL Americans.  That is a fact.  The leader of Iran publicly admits that he has a goal of completely wiping out Israel, and that guy hates the United States even more than he hates Israel.  And he is working toward having nuclear weapons&#33;  Think about that.  

That is the type of nightmare we are dealing with now.  That is why I think it is so disgusting when people take this insanely serious situation we are in and use it to bolster their self and social images by jumping on the giant bandwagon with this, "It&#39;s all about oil&#33;  I hate Bush&#33;" conspiracy nonsense.  I know that some people are sincere in their opposition, but way too many people think this stuff is nothing but a chance to join some kind of VH1 idiot fashion show.  It is sociopathic for a person to put his or her phony social image above the future of humanity.

----------


## Moonbeam

What did Iraq ever do to the U.S.?  If just hating us is a good enough reason to get invaded, there are a lot of other places we need to go to.

The 911 terrorists were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  So we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.  But we were planning that Afghan invasion before 911 anyway; need to make the area safe for the pipeline building.   Too bad we armed the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviets; made them a little more dangerous.  

I really thought the reason our leaders kept claiming that Saddam had WMD was because they knew that he had some that we gave him, leftover from when he was our ally against Iran (who hates us, by the way, because we overthrew their democratically elected leader and put the Shah in power).  But that was not it and everyone knew he didn&#39;t have anything.   We didn&#39;t any reason to go there the first time either, Bush the first and Cheney told him it was OK to go into Kuwait, then they changed their minds.  Not that it should have mattered to us either way.

----------


## Moonbeam

> the future of humanity.
> [/b]



I doubt will be decided by this war.

----------


## Universal Mind

The war in Iraq is about much more than what you mentioned.  I said this last September in this thread... 





> The recent war in Iraq was unfortunately necessary because according to the intelligence of MANY governments and our own CIA and our prior administration and our senate, the Hussein regime had WMD&#39;s.  That regime was also terrorist.  They provided fincancial incentives for suicide bombers in Israel.  They shot missiles at Israel and Kuwait without provocation.  They took over Kuwait for purely selfish purposes.  They killed thousands of Kurds with WMD&#39;s.  They were genocidal.  The people of Iraq were scared for their lives about whether they might breathe the wrong way.  The Hussein regime tortured people to death and raped people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of dissidence.  They reportedly tried to assassinate one of our former presidents out of pure hatred.  On top of all of this, they called us "infidels" and "Satan".  They were a terrorist government that apparently had WMD&#39;s and hated every bone in our bodies.  After 9/11 and the resulting formation of the Bush Doctrine, which says, legitimately and intelligently, that the U.S. will go after any government that supports terrorism, Iraq was second on our list.  If you think about EVERYTHING I just said, you will see a picture of a government whose continued existence was completely out of the question.  On top of that, they violated the treaty that ended our war with them in 1991 on several counts for 12 years.  They had to go.  
> 
> Why are we still there?  Because leaving now would result in chaos that might never be settled.  We have to remain there until things are much more stable.  Democracy in that region is an absolute necessity.  In the long run, as opposed to the short run, a democracy in that area will result in a more civilized and educated society that has less reason to kill innocents deliberately out of nothing but hatred and brainwashing.  Democracies have historically been breeding grounds for more rational people than those who live under oppressive dictatorships.  Democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually stabilize after this terrible transition period, and it will influence others in the Middle East to push for democracy.  The confident pursuit of democracy will be a craze that will never die in the Middle East.  That will eventually result in a free Middle East.  That is when the world becomes a much safer place.  Also, the goverments will not fund large scale terrorism such as that which involves WMD&#39;s.  Terrorism with nukes would be the unthinkable, and we are working now to make sure it never happens.  It is out of the question.  
> 
> I want to go ahead and address those who will probably say, "Well, the United States kills people.  That&#39;s terrorism."  I am talking about the deliberate targetting and killing of innocents for the venting of rage.  Accidentally killing innocents in the crossfire of necessary conflicts which the innocents have been warned about is very different.  People who don&#39;t understand the moral difference will inevitably be lost when it comes to the war on terror.  There is a huge difference.  And targetting a small number of innocents, as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the well thought out purpose of saving a much larger number and actually being successful at it is also very different .  Blowing up a mall because it appears to be the only way to kill people who are about to blow up the city is justified.  Blowing up a mall because you are pissed off and feel like hurting somebody is completely different.  Don&#39;t you think?  
> [/b]



That is what the Hussein regime (formerly referred to as "Iraq") did.  It had nothing to do with thinking Iraqis hijacked airplanes on 9/11.  We wouldn&#39;t go after a government because of what a few of their citizens did any way.  

We did give WMD&#39;s to the government of Iraq when they allied with us against Iran.  An alliance is not inherently a condoning of all of a government&#39;s activities.  We were enemies with the Soviet Union when we allied with them against the Nazis.  We had to do it to save the world.  General Patton and others pushed to go to war against the Soviet Union immediately after WWII.  Also, saying, "The United States does it too," does not make us any safer.  We have a very serious situation to deal with, and we are doing it.  I would love to read about alternative solutions.  Does anybody have any to suggest?  Suicide bomber governments and WMD&#39;s are an out of the question combination.  Iran might have to be next.  I hope not.

----------


## memeticverb

> What did Iraq ever do to the U.S.?  If just hating us is a good enough reason to get invaded, there are a lot of other places we need to go to.
> 
> The 911 terrorists were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.  So we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.  But we were planning that Afghan invasion before 911 anyway; need to make the area safe for the pipeline building.   Too bad we armed the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviets; made them a little more dangerous.  
> 
> I really thought the reason our leaders kept claiming that Saddam had WMD was because they knew that he had some that we gave him, leftover from when he was our ally against Iran (who hates us, by the way, because we overthrew their democratically elected leader and put the Shah in power).  But that was not it and everyone knew he didn&#39;t have anything.   We didn&#39;t any reason to go there the first time either, Bush the first and Cheney told him it was OK to go into Kuwait, then they changed their minds.  Not that it should have mattered to us either way.
> [/b]



So true.  But it doesn&#39;t look like you&#39;re going to get a good response, at least from Universal Mind, whose logic is as deplorable as the so-called rationality he wishes to impose on foreign nations. 

Not only is it contradictory to spread democracy by waging war with no support from the world community or at home for that matter, this historically has not been what the U.S. has done.  In fact, the U.S. has instead waged war to serve the purpose of some monetary interest.  How many democracies have been overthrown by the U.S.? If you want a history lesson just read up on what happened to the democracies of Chile and Guatemala in the 80s.

And I just want to thank Universal Mind for equating "conspiracy theorists" to those who think the war in Iraq is all about the most precious resource in the world economy; and I mean oil, not weapons manufacturing, a close second.  By interjecting something plausible into the definition of a conspiracy theory you are actually giving more credence to what usually gets referred to as a conspiracy.  In political strategy this is called boundary shifting.  Say... youre not a clever leftist posing as a radical right-winger are you? Regardless, hats off to you sir&#33;  You smear the neo-con position like no one else could.  I look forward to more.  
:yumdumdoodledum::yumdumdoodledum:

----------


## Merck

Well I don&#39;t have the kind of time it would take to actually read all 20 pages of this thread, but just from reading the first few pages I can honestly say that there are some people here with some FUCKED UP views of the world.  Wow...

----------


## Neruo

Every day I see in all the media I see, more and more of the same message:  &#39;Iraq is raped, America fucked up&#39;. Even Americans see that now. They also see there is no way of &#39;winning&#39; this war. There are only bad choices, and worse choices from this point.

You fail to see that Universal. Once bush ordered those troops to be moved into Iraq, America (and the world as a whole) already lost.

----------


## Merck

> Every day I see in all the media I see, more and more of the same message:  &#39;Iraq is raped, America fucked up&#39;. Even Americans see that now. They also see there is no way of &#39;winning&#39; this war. There are only bad choices, and worse choices from this point.
> 
> You fail to see that Universal. Once bush ordered those troops to be moved into Iraq, America (and the world as a whole) already lost.
> [/b]



Yea we should give up like the French are so used to doing and go ahead and let fundamentalist radical Muslims rule the entire planet.  We&#39;ve already lost right?  Hell, what&#39;s the point of standing up for what you believe is right anyway?  

John Stuart Mill said it best:  "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.  The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.  The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

----------


## Neruo

Funny how the -few remaining- pro-war people changed from &#39;we are bringing freedom&#39; to &#39;well, if we don&#39;t act the terrorist rule the world&#33;&#39;. Pretty darn silly. First of all, in iraq there were no WMD&#39;s, and saddam had no plans of attacking any country, let alone the USA. Besides that, the taliban, your goal in afganistan, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge, the muslim extremist in afganistan weren&#39;t even that much focusing on anything but controlling their own little country with their silly religion.

Also by mentioning the french, you basicly pass all logic and reason, and just go to the childish fear &#39;not to look like a pussy&#39;.

----------


## zxc

> Funny how the -few remaining- pro-war people changed from &#39;we are bringing freedom&#39; to &#39;well, if we don&#39;t act the terrorist rule the world&#33;&#39;. Pretty darn silly. First of all, in iraq there were no WMD&#39;s, and saddam had no plans of attacking any country, let alone the USA. Besides that, the taliban, your goal in afganistan, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge, the muslim extremist in afganistan weren&#39;t even that much focusing on anything but controlling their own little country with their silly religion.
> 
> Also by mentioning the french, you basicly pass all logic and reason, and just go to the childish fear &#39;not to look like a pussy&#39;.
> [/b]



Saddam has had WMDs in the past, people think like the US is the only nation that thought he had WMDs, when the whole world pretty much thought the same thing.  I believe that Saddam did have the WMDs but was smart enough to move them out.  Saddam has a history of attacking other nations, there is plenty of evidence to believe that he hasn&#39;t changed.  I think Iraq is much better off right now, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people just because they didn&#39;t agree with him.  He has also bombed entire villages with WMDs just to test them out.  The people wanted Saddam out, and if you look at history, you&#39;ll see that revolutions started by the people do eventually happen and are usually very bloody.

----------


## Merck

I think the real issue here is the hatred that so many countries feel for the U.S.A.  I guess that&#39;s what we get for being on top.  There is nothing that America can do that would keep other countries from hating us.

----------


## badassbob

> I think the real issue here is the hatred that so many countries feel for the U.S.A.  I guess that&#39;s what we get for being on top.  There is nothing that America can do that would keep other countries from hating us.
> [/b]



Yeah, I recently watched Battle Royale 2. There&#39;s a big anti USA message there - even if they do like to say "that country" insted of "America". They talk about how America has bombed something like 50 countries in the last 60 or so years.

----------


## Neruo

> stuff
> [/b]



LOL. Your own government accepted Iraq and Saddam in the 90&#39;s, but then all of a sudden, with no proof at all, Saddam had WMD&#39;s. Saddam only attacked countries around him, for land or oil or whatever, why would he want to bomb america? He was a dictator, he wasn&#39;t a religious ideologist that thought that america had to be destoyed, I think he didn&#39;t gave a shit.

Iraq better? About 2.5% of it&#39;s population has died... 650.000 people and counting. Don&#39;t say that is a bullcrap-number, an independend study researched it properly, and seeing that every day about 100 people, sometimes up to 200, die when another market place gets bombed, it isn&#39;t a hard piece of math. 

War + Iraq = total chaos, destruction, death, civil war, 8 trillion dollars nation depth for America. lol.

Everyone claiming Iraq is better then it was before, where would you rather go? On of the dozen of countries in africa run by cruel dictators, or Iraq?

Especially ask Iraqees and Iraq veterans. Rather dictated but hopefull then in a civil war and oppressed by a huge army.

----------


## Universal Mind

> LOL. Your own government accepted Iraq and Saddam in the 90&#39;s, but then all of a sudden, with no proof at all, Saddam had WMD&#39;s. [/b]



I find myself explaining the same few simple facts to you over and over.  Let&#39;s try this again.  Hussein used WMD&#39;s to kill thousands of Kurds in a mindless terrorist attack.  The Hussein regime had a history of terrorism on other counts also.  The fact that we allied with them against Iran, just like we allied with the Soviet Union against the Nazis, does not mean they did not turn out to be terrorists or that we were in full support of all of their ways.  Before Gulf War II started, we got intelligence from many sources that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD&#39;s.  Do you know where we got that intelligence?  We got it from the governments of Britain, Israel, Russia, China, and France, as well as the United Nations and our CIA.  Did you comprehend that this time?  We didn&#39;t go after the Hussein regime or the Taliban because we thought they were responsible for 9/11.  Why do people waste their time arguing as if we did?  Our worst terrorist attack ever influenced the formation of the Bush Doctrine, which changed the nature of our foreign policy.  Do I need to explain this to you again?





> I think the real issue here is the hatred that so many countries feel for the U.S.A.  I guess that&#39;s what we get for being on top.  There is nothing that America can do that would keep other countries from hating us.
> [/b]



I totally agree.  Not even being a major factor in saving the world repeatedly can change many people&#39;s minds.  If the people who hate us were really hating us because of our violence, they would be bitching about Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others a whole lot more than they bitch about us.  The fact that they never do proves insincerity and that actually something else is at the root of their hateful obsessions.

----------


## Universal Mind

> So true.  But it doesn&#39;t look like you&#39;re going to get a good response, at least from Universal Mind, whose logic is as deplorable as the so-called rationality he wishes to impose on foreign nations. 
> 
> Not only is it contradictory to spread democracy by waging war with no support from the world community or at home for that matter, this historically has not been what the U.S. has done.  In fact, the U.S. has instead waged war to serve the purpose of some monetary interest.  How many democracies have been overthrown by the U.S.? If you want a history lesson just read up on what happened to the democracies of Chile and Guatemala in the 80s.
> 
> And I just want to thank Universal Mind for equating "conspiracy theorists" to those who think the war in Iraq is all about the most precious resource in the world economy; and I mean oil, not weapons manufacturing, a close second.  By interjecting something plausible into the definition of a conspiracy theory you are actually giving more credence to what usually gets referred to as a conspiracy.  In political strategy this is called boundary shifting.  Say... youre not a clever leftist posing as a radical right-winger are you? Regardless, hats off to you sir&#33;  You smear the neo-con position like no one else could.  I look forward to more.  
> :yumdumdoodledum::yumdumdoodledum:
> [/b]



Aw, look at the peace and love being spread by this personality disordered moron.  Memeticverb, I very clearly illustrated the need to overthrow the Hussein regime and the need to stay in Iraq for the time being, and you did not counter my points.  Are you smart enough to see that?  You very viciously insulted me and the fact that I made my points, but you did not counter my points.  Let&#39;s see what you can do, hateful retard.  Probably nothing.  

The theory that the war in Iraq is rooted in an oil conspiracy is unfounded, and it does qualify as a "conspiracy theory", which is a term often used nonliterally to mean "conspiracy hypothesis", which is what your claim is.  You see a possibility and then jump to a conclusion based not on solid logic, but instead your hateful wishes to find excuses to express hatred against the U.S. government.  You are so peaceful and loving.   

You made a bizarre claim when you said that it is "hypocritical" to spread democracy without support from other nations.  Why would that be "hypocritical"?  Also, we have had support from other countries this whole time.  Have you heard of the "Coalition"?  Do you know what countries are part of the Coalition?  Hint:  more than just the United States.  You also said that we waged war without support at home.  Wrong again.  About 3/4 of Americans supported the waging of the war.  Idiot.  

The "democracies" we overthrew were democracies about like the Soviet Union was a "Republic" and China is a "Republic".  Those conflicts took place due to Soviet/communism support, and we were in the Cold War, the second worst threat to world freedom in history.  We won, and you are damn lucky.  It&#39;s too bad you are such a rotten, hateful, unappreciative scum bag.  

Let&#39;s talk about another crazy conclusion you leaped to.  I am not a "radical right winger".  I am Libertarian on every issue except foreign policy issues.  Do you know what a Libertarian is?  On many issues, I am more liberal than most Democrats.  You have a lot to learn about life.  

Let me know when you want another history lesson.  Also, I will be looking forward to your counterarguments to the points I made about the basis of the current war in Iraq.  Spread the love.

----------


## Moonbeam

> I am Libertarian ....
> 
> [/b]



_YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals._  

Did you check the box?

(For those who are not Libertarians, you must agree to this statement to join the party).

----------


## memeticverb

> Aw, look at the peace and love being spread by this personality disordered moron.  Memeticverb, I very clearly illustrated the need to overthrow the Hussein regime and the need to stay in Iraq for the time being, and you did not counter my points.  Are you smart enough to see that?  You very viciously insulted me and the fact that I made my points, but you did not counter my points.  Let&#39;s see what you can do, hateful retard.  Probably nothing.  
> 
> The theory that the war in Iraq is rooted in an oil conspiracy is unfounded, and it does qualify as a "conspiracy theory", which is a term often used nonliterally to mean "conspiracy hypothesis", which is what your claim is.  You see a possibility and then jump to a conclusion based not on solid logic, but instead your hateful wishes to find excuses to express hatred against the U.S. government.  You are so peaceful and loving.   
> 
> You made a bizarre claim when you said that it is "hypocritical" to spread democracy without support from other nations.  Why would that be "hypocritical"?  Also, we have had support from other countries this whole time.  Have you heard of the "Coalition"?  Do you know what countries are part of the Coalition?  Hint:  more than just the United States.  You also said that we waged war without support at home.  Wrong again.  About 3/4 of Americans supported the waging of the war.  Idiot.  
> 
> The "democracies" we overthrew were democracies about like the Soviet Union was a "Republic" and China is a "Republic".  Those conflicts took place due to Soviet/communism support, and we were in the Cold War, the second worst threat to world freedom in history.  We won, and you are damn lucky.  It&#39;s too bad you are such a rotten, hateful, unappreciative scum bag.  
> 
> Let&#39;s talk about another crazy conclusion you leaped to.  I am not a "radical right winger".  I am Libertarian on every issue except foreign policy issues.  Do you know what a Libertarian is?  On many issues, I am more liberal than most Democrats.  You have a lot to learn about life.  
> ...




LOL.  Ok exactly how am i being hateful or demeaning by chastising you for improper reasoning?  I simply said that you were not using logic nor rationality in any of your argumentation.  Its fairly obvious, but let me be more clear.  

You state that because the government of Iraq used chemical weapons at one time in the 80&#39;s that the U.S. has a right to take over that country decades later.  *This is illogical*.  Not only did Iraq have full U.S. support during its use of chemical weapons, (as man people have already noted) the U.S. only became interested in invading Iraq when it began tightening its supply of oil.  Can you apply logic to these two simple facts?

You also stated that EVERYONE thought that Iraq had WMDs.  Have you heard of Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, who said over and over that Saddam did NOT have any WMDs?  He was echoed by scores of people around the world with intelligence and military backgrounds.  Heres a clip of Ritter talking about his proof of Saddam&#39;s complete impotence in regards to the WMD issue.  The Bush administration lied, flat out, when it said that IT had proof of WMDs.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19751782017310

And do you remember Richard Clark?  He was Bush&#39;s top anti-terrorism adviser who resigned because Bush explicitly ordered him right after 911 to find a link to Iraq so that the U.S. could have an excuse to invade and topple Saddam.  Oh.. but he must be lying, right? - sacrificing his political career to smear his boss, the president of the united states...  ::roll::  

And is it not the principle of democracy to NOT wage preemptive war with no provocation?  Didn&#39;t our founding fathers say something about that?  No bother, forget those old fools...

JAMES MADISON: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." 

PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

Again, no one has ever made a case that invading Iraq was in the best interest of anyone, especially the U.S.


And if you really consider yourself a Libertarian, you might want to keep up with the movement.  Please check out Aaron Russo, a prominent Libertarian -
Aaron Russo: Interview

I mean no disrespect, but wake up man...

----------


## Universal Mind

> _YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals._  
> 
> Did you check the box?
> 
> (For those who are not Libertarians, you must agree to this statement to join the party).
> [/b]



I am not an official member of the party.  Their stance on foreign policy is one thing stopping me.  I agree with them on everything else, except their wussy method of advertizing.  Most people don&#39;t even know who they are because they suck at making themselves known.  

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an initiation of force.  The Hussein regime initiated the force by taking over Kuwait in 1991.  We saved Kuwait and then, instead of overthrowing the Hussein regime like we should have, formed a treaty with them.  Under the treaty, they had several demands they had to meet to avoid overthrow.  They pissed on the demands, so we engaged in a CONTINUATION of force.

----------


## Universal Mind

> LOL.  Ok exactly how am i being hateful or demeaning by chastising you for improper reasoning?  I simply said that you were not using logic nor rationality in any of your argumentation.  Its fairly obvious, but let me be more clear.  
> 
> You state that because the government of Iraq used chemical weapons at one time in the 80&#39;s that the U.S. has a right to take over that country decades later.  *This is illogical*.



Are you trying to miss my points so much?  I listed several reasons for the war.  Did you even read my post?  Your point is ILLOGICAL. 

[/quote] You also stated that EVERYONE thought that Iraq had WMDs.  Have you heard of Scott Ritter, former U.N. weapons inspector, who said over and over that Saddam did NOT have any WMDs?  He was echoed by scores of people around the world with intelligence and military backgrounds.  Heres a clip of Ritter talking about his proof of Saddam&#39;s complete impotence in regards to the WMD issue.  The Bush administration lied, flat out, when it said that IT had proof of WMDs.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19751782017310 [/quote]

When did I use the term "EVERYONE"?  Where do you get these wild conclusions?  I know some people thought they had Dionne Warwick psychic powers enough to say that Hussein definitely no longer had WMD&#39;s.  The weapons inspectors said that Hussein did not have other weapons, ones that we have found.  We have even found sarin gas containers.  It is said by certain "experts" that it is no longer effective, but I don&#39;t remember Ritter saying anything about questionably inactive sarin gas in Iraq.  I guess those guys overlooked a few things.  Gee, I&#39;m ready to roll dice with suicide bomber governments that could very well have WMD&#39;s.  Taking such chances is a great idea.  So disagreeing with Ritter is automatic proof of lying?  I hope you don&#39;t have jury duty any time soon.  

[/quote] And do you remember Richard Clark?  He was Bush&#39;s top anti-terrorism adviser who resigned because Bush explicitly ordered him right after 911 to find a link to Iraq so that the U.S. could have an excuse to invade and topple Saddam.  Oh.. but he must be lying, right? - sacrificing his political career to smear his boss, the president of the united states...  ::roll::  [/quote]

Why would Clark want to become a professional writer instead?  Can you imagine such a thing?  

[/quote] And is it not the principle of democracy to NOT wage preemptive war with no provocation?  Didn&#39;t our founding fathers say something about that?  No bother, forget those old fools... 

JAMES MADISON: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." 

PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON: "The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." [/quote]

Washington was also our top general in the Revolutionary War.  He led the war against Britain for our freedom.  He was not blanketly against war.  He pointed out a disadvantage of having an enemy.  But read some more Washington history and see for yourself his support for war when it is necessary.  Madison&#39;s statement was the converse of the statement you are apparently inferring.  He did not say that fighting a foreign enemy means tyranny and oppression for this land.  

[/quote] Again, no one has ever made a case that invading Iraq was in the best interest of anyone, especially the U.S.
And if you really consider yourself a Libertarian, you might want to keep up with the movement.  Please check out Aaron Russo, a prominent Libertarian -
Aaron Russo: Interview

I mean no disrespect, but wake up man...
[/quote]

You did mean disrespect, so stop lying.  If you want to wave a white flag now, then I will too.  

What do you mean "no one" has ever made the case that the invasion of Iraq was in the best interest of anyone?  I&#39;ve made it.  Bush made it.  Blair made it.  Powell made it.  About 75% of the U.S. was in support of the war in the beginning.  So what are you saying?

----------


## Moonbeam

> I am not an official member of the party.  Their stance on foreign policy is one thing stopping me.  I agree with them on everything else, except their wussy method of advertizing.  Most people don&#39;t even know who they are because they suck at making themselves known.  [/b]



Usually big "L" means a member of the party, little "l" means you agree with libertarian philosophy.  I am a member of the party however also disagree with them on such views as coroporate responsibility, environment, etc.  I concur that they totally suck at promoting themselves.  I don&#39;t understand why they can&#39;t get on TV when any local nut usually can.  I don&#39;t know what they do with that &#036;25 a year I donate.





> The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not an initiation of force.  The Hussein regime initiated the force by taking over Kuwait in 1991.  We saved Kuwait and then, instead of overthrowing the Hussein regime like we should have, formed a treaty with them.  Under the treaty, they had several demands they had to meet to avoid overthrow.  They pissed on the demands, so we engaged in a CONTINUATION of force.
> [/b]



1) Kuwait used to be part of Iraq (I&#39;m unclear on exact boundaries of pre-colonial middle east but I read somewhere they thought it belonged to them). 2) We shouldn&#39;t be the world&#39;s police force.  3) Who cares about Kuwait?  4) Let some other Arab country defend them, they fight all the time anyway.  5) We did that for some oil related reason too.  Probably Saudis wanted us to and the Bushes do whatever they want.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Usually big "L" means a member of the party, little "l" means you agree with libertarian philosophy.  I am a member of the party however also disagree with them on such views as coroporate responsibility, environment, etc.  I concur that they totally suck at promoting themselves.  I don&#39;t understand why they can&#39;t get on TV when any local nut usually can.  I don&#39;t know what they do with that &#036;25 a year I donate.
> 1) Kuwait used to be part of Iraq (I&#39;m unclear on exact boundaries of pre-colonial middle east but I read somewhere they thought it belonged to them). 2) We shouldn&#39;t be the world&#39;s police force.  3) Who cares about Kuwait?  4) Let some other Arab country defend them, they fight all the time anyway.  5) We did that for some oil related reason too.  Probably Saudis wanted us to and the Bushes do whatever they want.
> [/b]



I used a capital L because I side so much with the party that I consider myself one of them, though I am not registered.  I am like a person who is separated but not divorced.  I am on the edge of using a lowercase l.  

1) Kuwait did not rightfully belong to Iraq in 1991.  The invasion involved killing, and it was done in pure selfishness.  2) Somebody has to be the world&#39;s police force.  3) Kuwaitis are humans too.  All innocent humans have a right to be free from oppressive dictatorships.  4) The other Arab countries were not helping them.  5) There was an oil concern.  There was also a humanitarian concern.  When the reasons add up high enough, war becomes necessary.

----------


## 3FLryan

there was no iraq until after ww1.  like many other mid-east states, its border was simply an arbitrary line drawn by european powers.  where on earth did you get the idea that kuwait belonged to iraq?

and as to the name of this thread...i guess he&#39;s calling out pretty much the entire world?

----------


## Moonbeam

> I am on the edge of using a lowercase l.  
> [/b]



Me too if I had any other choices.  But I blame the system for not allowing third partys as much as I blame the Liberatians for being so ineffective.  The Greens seem to get more done.





> All innocent humans have a right to be free from oppressive dictatorships.  [/b]



I agree but the US seems pretty selective about who to liberate, depending is in the ground they are standing on.

----------


## Wolffe

> I agree but the US seems pretty selective about who to liberate, depending is in the ground they are standing on.
> [/b]



And on who the dictators are

----------


## Universal Mind

> I agree but the US seems pretty selective about who to liberate, depending is in the ground they are standing on.
> [/b]



It is just that the reasons always have to go a few steps beyond a pure humanitarian concern.  For example, I think we should overthrow the government of Sudan due to its practice of genocide, but my government won&#39;t do it because the reasons have not stacked up high enough, in their view.  Humanitarian concerns for foreign populations always add significantly to American rationales for war, but they have never been enough by themselves.

----------


## memeticverb

Why do the Iraq war apologizers insist that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers is worth the 80+ Billion this war is costing?  They&#39;re clueless.  In fact,  we&#39;ve killed far more Iraqis than Saddam, and by sending our military there we are letting him indirectly kill Americans, something he never had the ability to do before.  And he isnt even in power any more....Bravo.. 

For any who are interested in the real reason for this decades long commitment, check out this new documentary.

Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors

A List of Bush LIES on Iraq 

This is for those who think the Bush administration simply was incompetent in regards to the intelligence it had on Iraq. It goes over every single presentation of evidence they made trying to get U.N. support for the war.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why do the Iraq war apologizers insist that killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers is worth the 80+ Billion this war is costing?  They&#39;re clueless.  In fact,  we&#39;ve killed far more Iraqis than Saddam, and by sending our military there we are letting him indirectly kill Americans, something he never had the ability to do before.  And he isnt even in power any more....Bravo.. 
> 
> For any who are interested in the real reason for this decades long commitment, check out this new documentary.
> 
> Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors
> 
> A List of Bush LIES on Iraq 
> 
> This is for those who think the Bush administration simply was incompetent in regards to the intelligence it had on Iraq. It goes over every single presentation of evidence they made trying to get U.N. support for the war.
> [/b]



So intelligence given by Britain, China, Israel, France, Russia, the American Sentate, and the United Nations that a suicide bomber supporting, Hamas supporting, genocidal, Kuwait invading, Israel shooting with missiles, ruthlessly oppressive dictatorship that has used WMD&#39;s for terrorism on masses of innocents and is a major enemy of the United States during the post-9/11 period should be just kind of looked at for a second and put on a shelf after the dictatorship had for 12 years been violating the treaty that prevented their overthrow, even when freedom in the Middle East is going to be very necessary in the world&#39;s future?  No matter what insane conspiracy theory you might pull out of your ass, you cannot get around the fact that what I just described is justification for overthrow.  Even your childish initiation of disrespect toward everybody who disagrees with you on anything will not get you around it.  You are clueless.  

If you want to bitch about the civilian deaths, which are horrible, bitch about the insurgents who are killing them, just not in your exaggerated numbers.  I will be shocked if you actually complain about the insurgents.  If it really is violence that is bothering you, you will.

----------


## Hard as Nails

Why do they always say "hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have died"? Just as you said Universal, that is an extreme exageration. 


Flat out lies so far...
1. Hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. False
2. We have killed more than Sadam. False.
3. Iraq had NO ties with terrorists. False
4. Sadam did not have Uranium. False.

Common misconceptions...
1. American soldiers regularly torture Iraqi P.O.W.s. False
2. Precision guided bombs arent precise. False
3. American planes carpet bomb cities. False. (yes, i actually heard this said once)
4. Bush is there for the oil.....are you bush?
5. America is trying to exterminate Muslims.......?????

Common ground....
1. Bush sucks.....or, at the least, is "misguided"


Look, Universal, the reason everybody blames us for the probs in Iraq is because we are the biggest player so far. Many of the people are denying intelligence provided by their own governments to us, as you have pointed out. Maybe, just maybe, it is easier for them to blame us for something their governments are responsible for....

----------


## Neruo

> Why do they always say "hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have died"? Just as you said Universal, that is an extreme exageration. 
> Flat out lies so far...
> 1. Hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. False[/b]



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/







> 2. We have killed more than Sadam. False.[/b]



You did per year. And if you will keep in iraq A little longer, you will catch up to saddam, that has been in power for decades.





> 3. Iraq had NO ties with terrorists. False[/b]



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/827377/posts





> 4. Sadam did not have Uranium. False.[/b]



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/





> Common misconceptions...
> 1. American soldiers regularly torture Iraqi P.O.W.s. False
> 2. Precision guided bombs arent precise. False
> 3. American planes carpet bomb cities. False. (yes, i actually heard this said once)
> 4. Bush is there for the oil.....are you bush?
> 5. America is trying to exterminate Muslims.......?????[/b]



Yeah, Guantanamo bay, and all those photo&#39;s, they are just made up.

Precisions guided bombs exactly hit those mosks. Did I say mosks? Well, ehhh, it looked like a weapon depot.

Not carpet bombs, but they do use cluster bombs http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...07irregular.htm





> Common ground....
> 1. Bush sucks.....or, at the least, is "misguided"
> Look, Universal, the reason everybody blames us for the probs in Iraq is because we are the biggest player so far. Many of the people are denying intelligence provided by their own governments to us, as you have pointed out. Maybe, just maybe, it is easier for them to blame us for something their governments are responsible for....
> [/b]



The war sucks, not just bush. Everyone that still thinks the war is doing any good, has their head up their ass. If we go back in this topic you see you and universal saying how you really are helping iraq. There is a civil war in iraq now. (Except for on FoxNews, lol).

If I have the time I will put all your old remarks about Iraq against the light of present time.

For now, civil war is funny enough. HA-HA. SEE ME LAUGHING? THIS IS MY HAPPY FACE.

----------


## Wolffe

If anyone noticed the news the other day, they will have noticed how one of the guys who resigned before it even started, because it was so corrupt, came out with all the actual knowledge that the government had about the non-existant WMDs etc. 

Read for yourself at this site

----------


## Universal Mind

I have heard all kinds of figures on how many Iraqis have been killed in the war.  I have heard everything from 44 thousand to 2 million.  It seems to come down to how much people have to gain by pushing bigger statistics.  What makes a big difference with me is how many of the Iraqis killed have been insurgent terrorists.  Hypothetically, if all of the Iraqis killed have been insurgent terrorists, for example, I hope we kill every last one of them.  That alone would make the war worth it.  Wiping out the suicide bomber culture would be one of the greatest things to ever happen.  Also, I know that lots of the Iraqis killed have been killed by insurgent terrorists.  Those are the bastards who are targetting civilians.  We are there to give innocent Iraqis permanent freedom, not death.  It is not just the present generation we are thinking about.  

As I have said repeatedly, Bush was given intelligence by five ally governments, the U.N., the CIA, the Senate, and the former administration that the suicide bomb supporting terrorist government had stockpiles of WMD&#39;s.  Therefore it is impossible to say truthfully that Bush made it up.  That is just retarded.  Also, the fact that the stockpiles have not been found is not proof that they never existed.  Think about the big picture and attempt to imagine what kind of picture we were dealing with.  It is not one to ignore.  

The stuff about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is absurd.  A few soldiers out of 150 thousand were out of line.  Anybody who wants to say that that is a reflection of how the U.S. military works in general is trying way too hard to be hateful.  What do you think of the fact that the prisoners at those places were there because they were working to ruin the world as you know it?  I believe in laws, but I don&#39;t have the first trace of sympathy for the terrorists.  I put American soldiers risking their lives to bring about a free Iraq and a safer future way above the scum that is trying so hard to prevent those things.

Don&#39;t forget that the terrorists you keep taking up for want you dead as fried chicken.

----------


## Sagea

I agree completley with what Seeker said. You war bashers cannot have a true idea of what&#39;s going on over there, because if you had been over there before and after, you would realize how stupid you sound.

I, on the other hand, have never been over there, but my dad serves in the Special Forces (Green Beret), so I have a very good idea of what happens over there.

That&#39;s all I&#39;m gonna say, because on the Internet, you never win an argument. It&#39;s like winning the Special Olympics.   ::content::

----------


## shark!

*Hey Hey USA, How many Kids did you Kill today?* 


shouldn&#39;t saddam be held responsible for killing innocent civilians?  shouldn&#39;t insurgents be held responsible for killing innocent civilians?  shouldn&#39;t you or me be held responsible for killing someone?
should washington be held responsible for killing innocent men women and childen? < what do you think? should they? yes or no? im just curious to what people think?  

but washington won&#39;t be...they weren&#39;t when they killed in vietnam...they wont be now.  so who will avenge dead iraqi children? who will hold washington responsible?  al qaeda? idk...probably no one will

and thats sad...that they will get away with this.  again.  imagine 40 000 (or 600 000) dead bodies? no arms..or faces...fucking cut in half bodies...that must be terrible.

btw i wouldnt kill that many people based on some intel given to me by anyone...





> I, on the other hand, have never been over there, but my dad serves in the Special Forces (Green Beret), so I have a very good idea of what happens over there.
> 
> That&#39;s all I&#39;m gonna say, because on the Internet, you never win an argument. It&#39;s like winning the Special Olympics. [/b]



hey im curious, what does happen over there that your dad knows about? (btwim not trying to win arguments..just thot id let you know, i just wanto see what people think)

should washington be held responsible for killing innocent people? < what do you think? should they? yes or no? im just curious to what people think.  maybe America is the greatest and therefore can do no wrong? maybe the causes justify that many dead foreigners?(preemptive strikes do kill many poeople...but who cares right? cause those dead kids are not in our country..) maybe no one should kill that many people? or maybe thats not possible? a lot of people seem to say...its either their people who die...or our people...maybe there is so way to get around that? i guess...but i just dont know..

----------


## TheNocturnalGent

American politics= fucked. Im not even going to talk about them until 2009.

----------


## Moonbeam

A late response....





> Humanitarian concerns for foreign populations always add significantly to American rationales for war, but they have never been enough by themselves.
> [/b]



...so I guess you are saying it is for the oil.  We don&#39;t seem to be getting much, but I guess Halliburton made its money.

Question:  Why don&#39;t we attack North Korea?  Instead of denying them ipods?



Answer:  That would be too dangerous&#33;  They have weapons of mass destruction&#33;

----------


## Universal Mind

> A late response....
> ...so I guess you are saying it is for the oil.  We don&#39;t seem to be getting much, but I guess Halliburton made its money.
> 
> Question:  Why don&#39;t we attack North Korea?  Instead of denying them ipods?
> Answer:  That would be too dangerous&#33;  They have weapons of mass destruction&#33;
> [/b]



You guess I am saying it is for the oil?  What made you want to make that up?  Have you really been reading my posts?  I listed the major reasons for the war, more than once.  Do I need to list them yet again?  

Why we have not (yet) attacked North Korea...

1. They have not on several counts for 12 years broken a ceasefire that stated overthrow as a consequence of noncompliance with the provisions.  
2. They have not provided financial incentives for suicide bombers by offering to give money to their families if they commit suicide bombings, they do not support Hamas, they have not attacked Israel or taken over Kuwait, and they have not used weapons of mass destruction on masses of civilians for terrorist purposes.
3. They are not in the heart of the Middle East, a region where the future of civilization is depending on democracy to grow. 
4. Invading North Korea would not bring the suicide bombing minded nut cases of the world out of the wood work so we can kill them.  
5. Peaceful measures still have a significant chance of working.   

However, we will attack them if their nuclear program gets big enough and they continue to be defiant.  We don&#39;t want a terrorist organization getting their hands on North Korea&#39;s nukes.  I personally think we should overthrow them.  I think every country in the world deserves to be free.  If the rest of the world would come together with that belief, we could liberate the entire world pretty fast.  That will never happen, but I do think that eventually every country will be free because the more democracy spreads, the more the unfree people of the world will want it.  That is one reason I am really hoping things will work out well in Iraq.  I think that a successful Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East will inspire the people of surrounding countries to demand their freedom.  Freedom is humanity in its natural state.

----------


## Moonbeam

> 3. They are not in the heart of the Middle East, a region where the future of civilization is depending on democracy to grow.  [/b]



Why is that?  It that is true I think civilization may be over soon.





> Freedom is humanity in its natural state.
> [/b]



I wish more people believed that.

I probably shouldn&#39;t have gotten back into this.  I don&#39;t believe in attacking first which is what we did.  I don&#39;t believe the motives of our leaders are good and I can&#39;t believe they are so stupid as to think they can impose democracy.  I keep thinking there has to be another reason, however immoral or greedy or just misguided.  I don&#39;t think our country is in any real danger from attack because I think the citizens themselves could protect it from direct invasion, and there weren&#39;t any WMD.  I think your heart is in the right place (sort of) but I don&#39;t think it is worth killing people to free them, or killing American teenagers.  They need to want it and do it for themselves.  And you admit this special treatment is just for the people with resources we might want to take.

I apologize for not taking into account your previous arguments before posting again, that was rude.

----------


## Universal Mind

If our government really is up to something twisted and evil at the root of all of this, then they are some of the lowest scum in history.  I would be adamantly against killing just for oil profits.  That would be a terrible thing.  However, I think that no matter what evil second or even first agenda might somehow be involved in the war, I am completely convinced that changing the government of Iraq was a necessity and that we need to stay as long as it takes to get the new democracy on track.  That could take decades, but it is necessary.  Our own wild West period took a while, and Iraq is probably going to have to go through one for a long time too.  But I think they will improve over time and eventually be an excellent country.  It might take 100 years for the results to fully show themselves.   Then again, because the Industrial Revolution has already happened for so much of the world, it will probably take a great deal less time for Iraq to fully blossom than it did for us.  Industry greatly helped the economy of the United States and other countries, and that resulted in much more advanced and civilized cultures than what there was before the Industrial Revolution.  

You and a lot of other people in the world make the point that not finding WMD&#39;s is proof that they never existed and that the war was therefore not worth it.  I do believe that the Hussein regime had the WMD&#39;s but that they knew for a long time that we were coming, so they hid them to cause us the embarassment we have been experiencing.  Now a lot of the world hates us, and I think Hussein thought that would be more powerful than using WMD&#39;s on a few chunks of American soldiers.  If he had done the latter, we would now have the support of almost the entire world.  

The Reagan Administration gave them WMD&#39;s when we were allying with them against Iran.  I understand the need to sometimes join forces with a rotten government because we have a common enemy, just like we did with the Soviets against the Nazis, but I think giving WMD&#39;s to a government like the Hussein regime was playing with fire.  In hindsight, it was obviously a mistake.  Not all of those WMD&#39;s were accounted for, and accounting for them plus demonstrating their destruction was one of the demands we had on the Hussein regime.  They did not comply, and that was a violation of our 1991 ceasefire.  That is one of the major reasons we went back to war with them.  Because the war was a continuation of an old war in which the treaty was not honored, our invasion was not preemptive.  

What is so incredibly freaky is how nukes and other WMD&#39;s are becoming more accessible to enemy terrorist governments.  One of our missions now is to spread democracy in the Middle East so that suicide bomb governments like the Hussein regime, the Taliban, and Iran&#39;s current regime cannot get WMD&#39;s to their suicide bombers or other ones.  The idea of a suicide bomber government with nukes or biological or chemical weapons is Western civilization&#39;s worst nightmare.  The suicide bombers with WMD&#39;s might go afer the United States first and Israel second, but don&#39;t doubt for a minute that they will also go after Canada, Australia, and Europe.  We have to do what it takes to change the world to where that will never happen.  Prospering democracies tend not to be fanatical nut case governments.  For example, we are not afraid that France or Canada is out to get WMD&#39;s in the hands of suicide bombers against us.  That is why the future of civilization is depending on change in the Middle East, major change.  

I am not 100% sure that Cheney did not support the war because he wanted to increase Haliburton revenues or that Bush had his sights on pay offs from oil company executives.  I am not 100% sure of anything.  I know that most politicians are sociopathic scum.  But I think that even if something so sinister is the case, this war has been necessary.  I wish I could say it never was.  On the bright side, the sooner every country in the world is free, the sooner war will never be necessary again.

----------


## Moonbeam

> It might take 100 years for the results to fully show themselves.   
> [/b]



I don&#39;t think any politican is thinking that far into the future.  I think you are overly optimistic about "freeing the world" but that is just my opinion.  I think we will be seeing the results within our lifetime, good or bad.

I would have been against the war even if it had gone well but it has not gone well at all.  The Abu Graib thing alone is so disturbing it makes me sick; just think of how the rest of the world sees that.  A prisoner who had been in there under Saddam, and then under the U.S., said that at least when Saddam was the imprisoner he got to keep his clothes on.  I think that the way the world sees the U.S. has probably changed severely for the worse and all sympathy we might have had is gone, and rightly.  Have to wait and see how the mess the place is in now resolves.

Another disappointing thing about this war is the suckiness of our military. Besides making such a mess over there, just dealing with Iraq stretches it so thin we can&#39;t even think about doing anything else, if necessary.  My opinion of this country has changed a lot in the last few years in a lot of ways.  

Well you have some ideas I guess of why you think this is the right thing, other than the usual dumbasses who just think Saddam was responsible for 9/11, I just happen to disagree with you.  And what about the 1/3 of people who think the U.S. government was responsible for 9/11?  That&#39;s pretty funny, they think their own government did that, and oh well, life goes on&#33;  

WEll you are optimistic and I am not.  I guess we will have to wait and see what happens over the next few years.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I guess we will have to wait and see what happens over the next few years.
> [/b]



I guess it all comes down to that.  We will not know with certainty for a long time whether it was all worth it.  If it turns out that it was, I think it will lead to more liberations and more countries favoring such a thing.  If it turns out to be a huge mistake, the existence of a free world will be put on hold for no telling how many more centuries.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

bump!

Iraq is unfixable as it is. If the EVERY MAJOR COUNTRY helped out in Iraq, we could fix it. But i guess everyone would rather argue than help.

----------


## Universal Mind

> bump!
> 
> Iraq is unfixable as it is. If the EVERY MAJOR COUNTRY helped out in Iraq, we could fix it. But i guess everyone would rather argue than help.



No, you didn't!   ::o:   It's the thread that never dies!  But...  I agree with you, partly.  If every major country would get involved, we could clean up Iraq a whole lot faster.  But then angry protestors couldn't have as much fun calling Bush and Cheney Nazis, and people have their needs.

By the way, I saw where you said you are going to join the Army.  Thanks for doing that, but are you sure you want to take such a risk of fighting a war you think is futile?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> No, you didn't!    It's the thread that never dies!  But...  I agree with you, partly.  If every major country would get involved, we could clean up Iraq a whole lot faster.  But then angry protestors couldn't have as much fun calling Bush and Cheney Nazis, and people have their needs.
> 
> By the way, I saw where you said you are going to join the Army.  Thanks for doing that, but are you sure you want to take such a risk of fighting a war you think is futile?




BT starts in mid August at Ft. Jackson, SC for me. Thanks for the thanks, but i havent gotten through it yet. Im in shape so i dont think it will be that much of a problem. Its the whole "road side bomb" thing that has me worried.

This may sound strange, but i kind of _want_ to go to Iraq. I need to see this stuff first hand. Its hard to explain. This is more about "becoming a man" than it is about burning passion for America. I need more self discipline. 

I just dont understand why the UN wont step in. Well, yea i do know why but its irrelevent. Maybe its better they dont jump in. They would probably just drop leaflets over fanatic strongpoints, anyway. PILLOW FIGHT!!!!!

----------


## Universal Mind

> BT starts in mid August at Ft. Jackson, SC for me. Thanks for the thanks, but i havent gotten through it yet. Im in shape so i dont think it will be that much of a problem. Its the whole "road side bomb" thing that has me worried.
> 
> This may sound strange, but i kind of _want_ to go to Iraq. I need to see this stuff first hand. Its hard to explain. This is more about "becoming a man" than it is about burning passion for America. I need more self discipline. 
> 
> I just dont understand why the UN wont step in. Well, yea i do know why but its irrelevent. Maybe its better they dont jump in. They would probably just drop leaflets over fanatic strongpoints, anyway. PILLOW FIGHT!!!!!



Yeah, don't hold your breath waiting for the U.N. to jump in.  Good luck, and be careful over there, if you go.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

unfortunately roadside bombs are near impossible to predict. Its those im worried about, not the AK-47. 

I will be conducting public affairs for the army, conducting interviews and assesing the front lines. Yall may see me on the TV one day.

----------


## Harrycombs

Half/Dreaming, be careful in Iraq!

Also, I can't see Iraq getting fixed any time soon. Also, Universal Mind, did you know that Bush's grandfather gave money to Hitler during WW2? So Bush's grandfather did support Nazis. I don't the George W. Bush does though.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Also, Universal Mind, did you know that Bush's grandfather gave money to Hitler during WW2? So Bush's grandfather did support Nazis. I don't the George W. Bush does though.



I've heard that.  I guess Bush's grandfather was an evil asshole.

----------


## memeticverb

> I've heard that.  I guess Bush's grandfather was an evil asshole.



Can you imagine if your grandfather was an evil asshole?  

And rich weapons manufacturing and oil industries were populated by your close family members?

And then they slowly worked their way into politics?

And coincidentally engaged in political activities that greatly increased their profits?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Can you imagine if your grandfather was an evil asshole? 
> 
> And rich weapons manufacturing and oil industries were populated by your close family members?
> 
> And then they slowly worked their way into politics?
> 
> And coincidentally engaged in political activities that greatly increased their profits?



I don't judge entire families by just one of their members.  I really hope people don't judge me based on that.  I'm sure you hope people don't judge you based on it too.  

So, are you giving an argument that George W. Bush is working for the Nazis?  Or are you just saying that one Nazi family member proves that anybody else in the family is automatically evil, so therefore G.W. Bush is?

----------


## memeticverb

Firstly, modern science has shown that pathology is indeed passed down.  But the argument is not that simply because someone's family memeber iis evil then everyone in the family is, or that the pathology was necesarily passed down to one person.  Unless however, that person engages in similar activites as the other.  

Even if you do not yet believe 911 was an inside job, the indiscriminate and unprovoked invasion (according to traditional standards of the rules of war set down by the founders of America, namely non-interventionism) resulting in needless American deaths and at least many tens of thousands of inoocent men, women, and children who would not have perished otherwise, the violation of the constitutional privacy in the NSA Patriot Act scandal, and many other things, strongly suggest Bush is evil.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Firstly, modern science has shown that pathology is indeed passed down.  But the argument is not that simply because someone's family memeber iis evil then everyone in the family is, or that the pathology was necesarily passed down to one person.  Unless however, that person engages in similar activites as the other.  
> 
> Even if you do not yet believe 911 was an inside job, the indiscriminate and unprovoked invasion (according to traditional standards of the rules of war set down by the founders of America, namely non-interventionism) resulting in needless American deaths and at least many tens of thousands of inoocent men, women, and children who would not have perished otherwise, the violation of the constitutional privacy in the NSA Patriot Act scandal, and many other things, strongly suggest Bush is evil.



Religious, fanatic, suicide bombers are evil. These people RAN Afghanistan. With brutal oppression. Like, women being killed for showing an ankle. Good people have to kill evil people, which makes them somewhat evil. An American president can never be soft, and taking a passive stance, a popular stance of the UN, just lets problems develop.

----------


## amyaem

> But the argument is not that simply because someone's family memeber iis evil then everyone in the family is...



lmao.  I beg to differ.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Firstly, modern science has shown that pathology is indeed passed down. But the argument is not that simply because someone's family memeber iis evil then everyone in the family is, or that the pathology was necesarily passed down to one person. Unless however, that person engages in similar activites as the other. 
> 
> Even if you do not yet believe 911 was an inside job, the indiscriminate and unprovoked invasion (according to traditional standards of the rules of war set down by the founders of America, namely non-interventionism) resulting in needless American deaths and at least many tens of thousands of inoocent men, women, and children who would not have perished otherwise, the violation of the constitutional privacy in the NSA Patriot Act scandal, and many other things, strongly suggest Bush is evil.



The war in Iraq was far from unprovoked.  It was not unjustified or even preemptive.  It was a continuation of an earlier war due to the Hussein regime's failure to meet ceasefire provisions on several international terrorism grounds.  Plus, I am for the liberation of all dictatorships.  I think the whole world should stand together against dictatorship.  Innocent people die during liberations, but many times more are saved in the long run.  I don't agree with all of the Patriot Act, but there is a certain degree of understandability I see in it and the way Bush has handled terrorist threats.  We have a pretty damn serious situation on our hands.

----------


## Howie

As we have seen, this argument can go on indefinitely. There are some facts that cannot be proven, propaganda, straight out Bullshit, exaggerations, speculations misunderstandings and there are just general different opinions. 

So what I propose is for every one to get involved locally.
There is corruption at every level of the government. There will always be.
The only chance any of you stand in making a difference. Making your voice be heard and become pro active in your town, community state or region.

Bicker at your next town hall meeting. Join a group that has power by numbers. One  that you feel associated with. Get facts to back up your boast.
Do something!

There is simply too much that we do not know about this war to make any type of concise argument. There is enough information to extract useful information to guide you on becoming active. 
Otherwise. Have fun. 
Go around and around for another 30 pages.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> As we have seen, this argument can go on indefinitely. There are some facts that cannot be proven, propaganda, straight out Bullshit, exaggerations, speculations misunderstandings and there are just general different opinions. 
> 
> So what I propose is for every one to get involved locally.
> There is corruption at every level of the government. There will always be.
> The only chance any of you stand in making a difference. Making your voice be heard and become pro active in your town, community state or region.
> 
> Bicker at your next town hall meeting. Join a group that has power by numbers. One  that you feel associated with. Get facts to back up your boast.
> Do something!
> 
> ...



man, what a buzz-killer. You know as well as i do no American citizen is going to do a damn thing.

I think i may know a way to end this thread...

Alright, i was going to post a quote from Team America: World Police, but i typed it out and there was too much profanity. For anyone who has seen the movie, its the speech the main character gives as he tries to out-act Alec Baldwin, like 10 minutes before the end.

----------


## Universal Mind

Let's just agree to all come back to this thread in 50 years and talk about what became of Iraq and how the changes have affected the surrounding nations and the nature of Middle Eastern terrorism.  If this thread is gone, we'll start a new one.  I predict skyscrapers and Wall Street style business tycoons everywhere in Baghdad, Iraqi children with I-tunes and X Boxes in every house, great Iraqi political philosophers writing very influential books that improve the Middle East and therefore the world, and a lot of Iraqis making fun of the low level mentalities of Islamofascist terrorists.  Well, that might be 200 years from now, but let's come back here and talk in 50 years.  July 6, 2057.  Seriously, try to remember it.  It would be so cool.  I'll see you here.    :OK Bye now:

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Let's just agree to all come back to this thread in 50 years and talk about what became of Iraq and how the changes have affected the surrounding nations and the nature of Middle Eastern terrorism.  If this thread is gone, we'll start a new one.  I predict skyscrapers and Wall Street style business tycoons everywhere in Baghdad, Iraqi children with I-tunes and X Boxes in every house, great Iraqi political philosophers writing very influential books that improve the Middle East and therefore the world, and a lot of Iraqis making fun of the low level mentalities of Islamofascist terrorists.  Well, that might be 200 years from now, but let's come back here and talk in 50 years.  July 6, 2057.  Seriously, try to remember it.  It would be so cool.  I'll see you here.




Maybe Iraq could return to the land of gum-drop smiles and rivers of chocolate, like the Iraq before we invaded. ::rolleyes::

----------


## Moonbeam

I think we need a person from Iraq's opinion about this.  I'm sure if anyone here really cared they could find out.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Maybe Iraq could return to the land of gum-drop smiles and rivers of chocolate, like the Iraq before we invaded.



Yeah, that's exactly how the United States is.  I'm saying capitalism will most likely prevail and make them much like us over the next 200 years.  If you don't think that is even possible, are you sure you're ready to go over there and put your life on the line?   ::?:

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Yeah, that's exactly how the United States is.  I'm saying capitalism will most likely prevail and make them much like us over the next 200 years.  If you don't think that is even possible, are you sure you're ready to go over there and put your life on the line?



Oh man, you completely misunderstood me!!! I was making fun of people who say that Iraq was a land of peace before we invaded, like Sean Penn. You didnt notice the "roll eyes" emoticon?

 Hell yea for capitalism, dude. Hell yea for democracy. I think its cool that the Iraqis voted in a higher percentage than we did, even though they had death threats. Whats this about 200 years? If Germany could become capitalist, rise from ashes, and be what it is today, then Iraq could do it easily in less time than that. It just depends if the Iraqis want it enough.

As for my military plans, its not really about Iraq. Well, it is, as a part. I HATE fundamentalists. The way i see it, they are the only reason the West got involved in the Mid-East. If i can do my part in ending that hysteria, then that is awesome. 

Btw i switched my AIT (advanced individual training). I dropped public affairs for Infantry. I will definately be heading for the mid east.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Oh man, you completely misunderstood me!!! I was making fun of people who say that Iraq was a land of peace before we invaded, like Sean Penn. You didnt notice the "roll eyes" emoticon?
> 
> Hell yea for capitalism, dude. Hell yea for democracy. I think its cool that the Iraqis voted in a higher percentage than we did, even though they had death threats. Whats this about 200 years? If Germany could become capitalist, rise from ashes, and be what it is today, then Iraq could do it easily in less time than that. It just depends if the Iraqis want it enough.
> 
> As for my military plans, its not really about Iraq. Well, it is, as a part. I HATE fundamentalists. The way i see it, they are the only reason the West got involved in the Mid-East. If i can do my part in ending that hysteria, then that is awesome. 
> 
> Btw i switched my AIT (advanced individual training). I dropped public affairs for Infantry. I will definately be heading for the mid east.



Oh, sorry.  I thought you were saying I was talking a bunch of La La Land.  So you are definitely going over there and fighting, huh?  Wow!  Kick some ass, and be careful.  I'll look forward to talking to you about this when you get back.   :smiley:

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I'll be able to use the internet when im over there, and i'll be giving updates. You know, first ied survived and such. Keep in mind its gonna be like 6 months (maybe less) before i actually ship out. Depending on my mindset after BCT i might (thats a BIG "might") volunteer to go over there. Better sooner than later. The faster we kill every insurgent the faster we can leave.

----------


## SourCherryBoy

Every time I see a topic about war, I just have to post the lyrics of Donovan's song Universal Soldier (actually written by Buffy Saint-Marie). War is *never* justifiable. The same goes for killing. While it might be cool to quote some cold-blooded shit from a flashy movie about war, no-one who's actually been that close to killing and death would say such things. Hollywood directors tend to romanticize war and bravery, killing and dying for your country. And it makes sense - you need wood for the fire to keep on burning. But notice that writers like Hemingway, Remarque... or well... Juhan Peegel (an Estonian Writer  ::D: )... writers who have witnessed war firsthand... their books carry a different message. Although their books also have exciting moments in them, the anti-war view is rather clear when you're finally done reading and close the book.

Well... here's the song:

_He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He's a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers, can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war..._


And remember - if you want to see a difference in the world, start from yourself. Try not to blame others.

peace

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Your song is unrealistic. Inaction is no defense against war. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are destroying an ideal. An ideal that those are different than you have to die. Jihad. The holy war against all infidels. In the end, jihad will have killed far more people than our war has, especially if we leave it alone.

Anti war people can speculate whatever they want. Sometimes the only way to save lives is to take lives. That is indisputable. And people can say whatever the fuck they want about me. Call me a war-mongorer. Call me a barbarian, i dont care. I consider myself realistic, and simply leaving dangerous people alone will never solve the problem. 

Not everyone on this planet wants peace. People are greedy. Some are fundamentalists. Some want you dead just because you are alive. Call it propaganda, whatever, but turning the other cheek is no solution to jihadists.

----------


## Swikity

The human race will be exterminated in less than a thousand years so why does all this really matter? xD

I say we loot as much stuff as possible while there's still time!


Ahem.
On that note, if everything was solved when Sadam went out of power (he has been executed since), why is North America still in Iraq.
Canada is at least.
I realize that we are all these people have, but not a day goes by when you don't flick on the radio and hear of soldiers getting killed in a truck bomb, or scuicide bombing.

I can't wait until Bush is out of power.

I've heard rumours of Jeb Bush (Dubya's brother) running for office?
That would suck balls.

I honestly think that people are so fed up with Bush that he would be assasinated before he is elected.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The human race will be exterminated in less than a thousand years so why does all this really matter? xD
> 
> I say we loot as much stuff as possible while there's still time!
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> On that note, if everything was solved when Sadam went out of power (he has been executed since), why is North America still in Iraq.
> Canada is at least.
> I realize that we are all these people have, but not a day goes by when you don't flick on the radio and hear of soldiers getting killed in a truck bomb, or scuicide bombing.
> ...



I'm glad to know that Bush being in power somehow affects our little brother, Canada. 

Look at the big picture. Your expectations are WAY too high. We are fighting jihadists who hate us and hate eachother. Its an extremely volatile situation, and it could be a whole lot worse. When jihadists bury bombs, people die. 

Which would you rather have. Alcohol poured on a cut, or let it get infected? Sure, the alcohol spikes the pain, but it prevents prolonged, future pain from happening. Just because Iraq is a shit hole right now doesnt mean it will always be, and our involvement, even though it spiked violence, will ensure a peaceful Iraq. The BIG picture, my friend.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The BIG picture, my friend.



Yes, exactly.  That is what I am always trying to get people to see when I talk about this stuff.  Most of the arguments I get into about war involve the other person's taking parts of the big picture and talking about how ugly they are.  But the big picture is much more important than any of its individual parts.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Yes, exactly.  That is what I am always trying to get people to see when I talk about this stuff.  Most of the arguments I get into about war involve the other person's taking parts of the big picture and talking about how ugly they are.  But the big picture is much more important than any of its individual parts.




Its been 4 years of conflict right? People talk about it as if it is the worst thing in human history. As long as we dont withdraw and we reach our goals, Iraq will be a prosperous and peaceful country. It really bugs me when people claim that any death at all is unacceptable. People also complain about how "slow" the progress is. They actually wonder why Iraq doesnt have a perfectly stable government yet. Too high expectations.

I have heard that Saddam's sons were worse than he was. They would be killing people for decades.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Its been 4 years of conflict right? People talk about it as if it is the worst thing in human history. As long as we dont withdraw and we reach our goals, Iraq will be a prosperous and peaceful country. It really bugs me when people claim that any death at all is unacceptable. People also complain about how "slow" the progress is. They actually wonder why Iraq doesnt have a perfectly stable government yet. Too high expectations.
> 
> I have heard that Saddam's sons were worse than he was. They would be killing people for decades.



Saddam's sons would have been a nightmare in power, and so would their sons, and their sons, and their sons....  When would it end?  When we finally decided to overthrow them, and at no other time.  And imagine them with their beliefs, their government's history with the United States and Israel, their connections to Hamas and Hezballah and meetings with Al Qaeda representatives, plus nuclear weapons and/or other WMD's.  The worst nightmares of the West would have eventually become realities.  That government had to go.

----------


## LucidMike14

wow this thread goes on forever

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Saddam's sons would have been a nightmare in power, and so would their sons, and their sons, and their sons....  When would it end?  When we finally decided to overthrow them, and at no other time.  And imagine them with their beliefs, their government's history with the United States and Israel, their connections to Hamas and Hezballah and meetings with Al Qaeda representatives, plus nuclear weapons and/or other WMD's.  The worst nightmares of the West would have eventually become realities.  That government had to go.




Right. I would never had ended. The Hussein family is (was) extremely stubborn. He knew he would be fucked if we invaded, but he stayed. We offered to avoid a conflict by asking him and his sons to leave, but they didnt. 

If you ask me he should have been removed from power in 1991. If we took Iraq then, when we had a reason that nobody could contest, it would have been a lot easier. It would have been pre 9/11. The Arab world didnt know we could be attacked like that. The insurgency that we see today probably wouldnt have happened. A perfectly free, democratic Iraq would exist.

Democracy kicks ass. Look at the difference between South Korea and North Korea. Prosperity vs. Opression.

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you ask me he should have been removed from power in 1991. If we took Iraq then, when we had a reason that nobody could contest, it would have been a lot easier. It would have been pre 9/11. The Arab world didnt know we could be attacked like that. The insurgency that we see today probably wouldnt have happened. A perfectly free, democratic Iraq would exist.



In hindsight, I really wish it had been handled that way.  I was a hippy teenager (who had a lot to learn about how the world works) in 1991 and actually protested that war.  It's pretty funny that now I think we should have overthrown the Hussein government and replaced it.  





> Democracy kicks ass. Look at the difference between South Korea and North Korea. Prosperity vs. Opression.



That speaks volumes.

----------


## SourCherryBoy

> Your song is unrealistic. Inaction is no defense against war. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are destroying an ideal. An ideal that those are different than you have to die. Jihad. The holy war against all infidels.



Methods, my friend, methods. "We kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong." Madness. There are other ways of leading people on a "better" path than simply taking that path away.

Destroying an ideal? Ideals and ideas can't be destroyed with bullets. If at all, they can be shattered with the might of thought and word.





> In the end, jihad will have killed far more people than our war has, especially if we leave it alone.



I'm pretty sure you and I have no clue whether that statement is true or not.

---

Anyway, I don't really want to argue with you, as we probably hold very different views about war and other related issues, but I think that if you really want to help someone, then go to Africa or somewhere where your help is of actual use. Or pay more attention to people closer to you, as they probably need your help a lot more than those in Iraq.

Also, if you want to see a difference in world, then start from yourself. Simply put - work towards becoming a better person. You wielding a gun thousands of miles away from home, picking off someone's son or father in the distance... that's not a good way to start. And it certainly won't make a difference in _the big picture_.


My posts are probably a load of flower-power to you.
I wish I could say something that would simply suddenly change your views.
But I know that's very improbable.
And that makes my heart ace.

All I advise you to do, is think about _where you're really needed_, and _what motivates_ you.

----------


## Neruo

Wait, no-one mentioned that article about 50 Iraq-veterans telling about some of the less-nice sides of the war? 

I still have the paper some of it was in, I'll post it soon.

Most of it was like

American soldier: "Every good soldier always has two guns with him, one of them to plant as evidence on whoever he shot."

Something like that.

And it wasn't even from some extremely leftists newspaper I got that.

Coming soon.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Neuro, you assume that there actually is a nice side to war. Everything else in your last post was just stupid. 

SourCherryBoy, what really motivates me at this point in my life is helping stop the biggest world threat (along with cleaning up my own life). This requires me to be in Iraq. If that means killing these people or getting blown up by a road side bomb, then so be it. Fanatical Muslims are the last real, full-scale bigots left in the world. They are the most racist, hate-filled sacks of shit on the planet. I feel no sorrow for their sorrow. I dont care if they all die, and i hope they do. This may be contrary to your beliefs, but it is the only way. They dont stop. They are not afraid of death, and in fact, they strive for it. The only way to stop their violence is with our violence. Once their kind are dead, ALL violence in the Arab world stops.

It may be a youthful fantasy of mine, but i want to do something with my life. Being involved with stopping the last real evil i can see will make me happy. 

And no, SourCherryBoy, your posts dont sound sissy to me. What you want is the same thing i want. I just dont think these people understand anything but force. I also dont believe talk is a substitution for action.

----------


## Octavii

> Sorry, Seeker, but there's gonna be a tad bit of flaming here.
> 
> Leo, I just read in one of your posts that you think Iraq would have been better off if Sadam was still in power.
> 
> Who the hell gave you the right to make that kind of dumbass, ignorant statement. Have you ever been to pre or post war Iraq? Do you know what went on there before and after the takeover. NO. All your puny, liberal, inconsistent, opinionated brain knows is what CNN and NBC tell you. 
> 
> Anyone with half a brain knows that it is not a protest against the war. Its the same old fight between conservatives and liberals for power. The war is simply a tool to embarass Bush.
> 
> I have talked to several Marines, Airmen, and Amry footsoldiers, all of whom are connected to a Marine i work with. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them saw the terror Sadam caused and how happy the Iraqis were to see salvation.
> ...




So...the war in Iraq is good thing is it? thousands of people dying everyday! soildiers (both american and british) and all those poor residents of the country! ive seen plenty of footage of what soildiers get up to over there, i don't see how you improving anything? i ges your view is that if a thousand people should die to save millions then its ok!

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> So...the war in Iraq is good thing is it? thousands of people dying everyday! soildiers (both american and british) and all those poor residents of the country! ive seen plenty of footage of what soildiers get up to over there, i don't see how you improving anything? i ges your view is that if a thousand people should die to save millions then its ok!



hehe. I think you're 15 pages too late ::D:  I don't think he meant the war is a "good thing"

In my opinion, killing 500,000 people to save 1,000,000 is perfectly acceptable, especially if those 500,000 are scumbags. By what logic is saving 500,000 lives not a good thing?

And by the way, "thousands of people dying everyday!" isnt happening. What the hell are they telling you in England?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Anyway, I don't really want to argue with you, as we probably hold very different views about war and other related issues, but I think that if you really want to help someone, then go to Africa or somewhere where your help is of actual use. Or pay more attention to people closer to you, as they probably need your help a lot more than those in Iraq.
> 
> Also, if you want to see a difference in world, then start from yourself. Simply put - work towards becoming a better person. You wielding a gun thousands of miles away from home, picking off someone's son or father in the distance... that's not a good way to start. And it certainly won't make a difference in _the big picture_.



If you ever lose your freedom, you will understand just how valuable it was. 

Plus, democracy fights poverty because with it comes capitalism, and the best way to take away the jihad tendency of a population is to take away their poverty.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> If you ever lose your freedom, you will understand just how valuable it was. 
> 
> Plus, democracy fights poverty because with it comes capitalism, and the best way to take away the jihad tendency of a population is to take away their poverty.




Ha. I really do believe that fanatical Muslims hate us because we have it so much better than they do. That, and the fact that we have a different religion.

Even the Iraqis don't want American style freedom. They want absolute Islamic law, and they have said this. Our biggest mistake in Iraq was assuming that they wanted the freedom we have.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Even the Iraqis don't want American style freedom. They want absolute Islamic law, and they have said this. Our biggest mistake in Iraq was assuming that they wanted the freedom we have.



But their grandchildren are going to love it!   ::goodjob2:: 

When the party life starts getting featured on an Iraqi MTV type channel, towels are going to start flying off heads and Iraq is going to turn into a nation of drunk fornicators.  They won't be complaining about freedom once they've really tasted it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> But their grandchildren are going to love it!  
> 
> When the party life starts getting featured on an Iraqi MTV type channel, towels are going to start flying off heads and Iraq is going to turn into a nation of drunk fornicators.  They won't be complaining about freedom once they've really tasted it.



Ha!! Real World: Fallujah!!

----------


## Octavii

> hehe. I think you're 15 pages too late I don't think he meant the war is a "good thing"
> 
> In my opinion, killing 500,000 people to save 1,000,000 is perfectly acceptable, especially if those 500,000 are scumbags. By what logic is saving 500,000 lives not a good thing?
> 
> And by the way, "thousands of people dying everyday!" isnt happening. What the hell are they telling you in England?



ok lol maybe not thousands "everyday" but certaintly overall. Why are you assuming that these people are all scumbags? most that have died have been innicent civilians in all of this, which i don't think is acceptable. You cant preach about 'No War!' and 'No terroisim!' when your country (or you yourself) is bombing and killing and in a sense...invading

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> ok lol maybe not thousands "everyday" but certaintly overall. Why are you assuming that these people are all scumbags? most that have died have been innicent civilians in all of this, which i don't think is acceptable. You cant preach about 'No War!' and 'No terroisim!' when your country (or you yourself) is bombing and killing and in a sense...invading



I would say that most of the people we have killed are either insurgents or terrorists. To tell the truth i dont even care how many insurgents. No number of dead fanatics is too much. It may sound inhumane, but i really dont care if they die, because there is no hope for them to change. Their insane ideals are much more dangerous than the (precision) bombs we drop.

----------


## Octavii

political chats are really growing tiresome for me! you have your opinion, i have mine...who is right/wrong?     :Confused:

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> political chats are really growing tiresome for me! you have your opinion, i have mine...who is right/wrong?



Easy! I'm right, you're wrong:p

I have always felt that you cant look at war like that. Right and wrong, i mean. Choosing to not use military action could easily end up to be disasterous, just as using it can. Only time tells.

----------


## Octavii

> Easy! I'm right, you're wrong:p
> 
> I have always felt that you cant look at war like that. Right and wrong, i mean. Choosing to not use military action could easily end up to be disasterous, just as using it can. Only time tells.



isn't that the point i was trying to make...that theres no point in arguing whos right or wrong......

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> isn't that the point i was trying to make...that theres no point in arguing whos right or wrong......



Yes there is.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh1dW...elated&search=

From the mouth of an Army Ranger.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Bump!

I just want to know if anyone remembers that the Iraqi conflict was never supposed to be a war. How long did the UN give him to give up his secrets? How many months?

----------


## tkdyo

I love how people claim the war was for oil.  It makes so much sense that simultaneously we are getting extra oil from Iraq while our gas prices are rising.  

now that I have my sarcasm out of the way.  My cousin is a weapons inspector over there and he tells us the military still believes that Sadam had WMDs.  With the time that we gave Saddam to give up, he could have easilty had them burried in the desert.  The military is now concerned that the water table is going to be contaminated.  Of course, the media would not like to report this.  Until somthing starts making all the Saudis or which ever country the water flows to sick so they can blame it on something else.  Also, although nuclear WMDs have not been found, they have found several stores of chemical and biological weapons, which can cause mass death just as easily.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> I love how people claim the war was for oil. It makes so much sense that simultaneously we are getting extra oil from Iraq while our gas prices are rising. 
> 
> now that I have my sarcasm out of the way. My cousin is a weapons inspector over there and he tells us the military still believes that Sadam had WMDs. With the time that we gave Saddam to give up, he could have easilty had them burried in the desert. The military is now concerned that the water table is going to be contaminated. Of course, the media would not like to report this. Until somthing starts making all the Saudis or which ever country the water flows to sick so they can blame it on something else. Also, although nuclear WMDs have not been found, they have found several stores of chemical and biological weapons, which can cause mass death just as easily.



Ya dude. Lots of countries have chemical and biological weapons. Even peaceful canada does, the usa,many european countries and even several heavily unstable former soviet states. Big Deal.

I don't see how Iraq having Nuclear weapons is as bad as lets say...Israel having Nuclear weapons. Which it almost certainly does. The USA gave a half hearted effort to stop it from procuring the means to do so and just gave up.

If you ask me Israel is/was more of a loose cannon then the USA.

On the subject of petrol. I read a ha'aretz article  were it said the USA is pushing Iraq to build a pipeline from the Oil fields to Haifa in Israel. If that happens thats an obvious example of how the USA is taking control of Iraqs oil and giving it to enemies of the Iraqi people, to people who Iraq does not want their oil going to. 

So you guys say "I think Iraq has nuclear weapons, Lets invade!!"

You don't find any,hmmm...the motives for war become more suspicious.

"Hey wait, we will say here longer because we think the weapons are buried in the desert!!!"

----------


## skysaw

> My cousin is a weapons inspector over there and he tells us the military still believes that Sadam had WMDs.  With the time that we gave Saddam to give up, he could have easilty had them burried in the desert.



Just how long are we supposed to keep looking for them? Forever? 

Burying them in the desert is the last thing Saddam would have done. He would have _used_ them. He knew he was toast either way, so why not go out in a blaze? 

And so far as the US intentions went, it didn't matter whether they were found or not, we were going in. There was no peaceful option for Iraq to pursue.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Ya dude. Lots of countries have chemical and biological weapons. Even peaceful canada does, the usa,many european countries and even several heavily unstable former soviet states. Big Deal.
> 
> I don't see how Iraq having Nuclear weapons is as bad as lets say...Israel having Nuclear weapons. Which it almost certainly does. The USA gave a half hearted effort to stop it from procuring the means to do so and just gave up.
> 
> If you ask me Israel is/was more of a loose cannon then the USA.
> 
> On the subject of petrol. I read a ha'aretz article were it said the USA is pushing Iraq to build a pipeline from the Oil fields to Haifa in Israel. If that happens thats an obvious example of how the USA is taking control of Iraqs oil and giving it to enemies of the Iraqi people, to people who Iraq does not want their oil going to. 
> 
> So you guys say "I think Iraq has nuclear weapons, Lets invade!!"
> ...



Oh my God.   ::whyohwhy::   I keep coming across the same arguments against the war.  They just keep popping up again and again, the same ones over and over.  Dragon, Europe with WMD's is nothing like the Hussein regime with WMD's.  The Hussein regime was a nutball TERRORIST government that had engaged in WMD terrorism, funded Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, funded and trained terrorist groups, and hated our guts with a passion.  Put all of that together, and you will see why it was a problem for them to have WMD's in a way that it is not a problem if France has them.  Suicide bomber enemy government + WMD's = OUT OF THE QUESTION.  Do you honestly take issue with that?  

If Israel were a terrorist nation, its surrounding nations would be black spots on the map.  It's an open and shut case.





> Burying them in the desert is the last thing Saddam would have done. He would have used them. He knew he was toast either way, so why not go out in a blaze?



So most of the world would come at us with what you just said, FOREVER.  He thought embarrassing us forever would be much more hard hitting than killing a bunch of our soldiers in a very short war.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Bump

Discuss it here.

----------


## tkdyo

lol, why the bump, anyways, I will take this oppertunity then.

UM took care of the responses pretty handily, but Ill just tack on one thing to my previous post.  That is, those stores of biological and other weapons ARE violations of the cease fire agreement they had, thus it is just as much of an offense that they didnt let weapons inspectors go in and see those.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

Sorry to break this to you, but war is a concept for retarded people. Yes thats right, only retards go to war to kill random innocent people just because one crazy guy flew into a tower.

As long as you don't realize this and support the killing of people, you will stay a retard in my eyes.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> ...just because one crazy guy flew into a tower.



And you have the nerve to call _me_ retarded?

As long as you keep making statements like the one I quoted, you will remain a retard in my eyes.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

The killing of random innocent people is not evil?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The killing of random innocent people is not evil?



No. Evil come from killing them on purpose. Hence 9/11

----------


## ChaybaChayba

And you kill them by accident? What a pittyful excuse for your murdering. Seriously, I'm not kidding when I say you need to STOP KILLING PEOPLE.

The people who did 9/11 think exactly the same like you. They think KILLING PEOPLE is the solution. It's this mindset that creates evil.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> And you kill them by accident? What a pittyful excuse for your murdering. Seriously, I'm not kidding when I say you need to STOP KILLING PEOPLE.
> 
> The people who did 9/11 think exactly the same like you. They think KILLING PEOPLE is the solution. And you agree apparently.



Perhaps we should have sent them a gift basket.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The killing of random innocent people is not evil?



We don't target innocent people.  We overthrow rotten governments and create and preserve new ones.  Get your facts straight, and bitch at the terrorists who actually do target innocent people.  They are the ones we are trying to prevent by creating new governments and landscapes.  Are you ready to bitch at the terrorists who actually do target the innocent?  Well then, ready... go!

----------


## ChaybaChayba

So according to you, terrorists attack america for no reason at all? Just for fun? Do you truly believe that?

And yes, you do target innocent people. You bomb big cities, innocent people are bound to die. And you are also killing your own people. Americans are dying in the war FOR NOTHING.




> Perhaps we should have sent them a gift basket.



It would be better than sending them fucking bullets through their heads.. you watch too much movies. You have no right to kill people.

Tbh, I don't get it, don't you guys want a peaceful world? Why do you create war?! Why choose evil above good?

----------


## tkdyo

Wow, Chayba, Im sorry but I cannot believe you think we are targetting innocent people and you have nothing to say for the cowardly terrorists who hide among the innocent?  Plus you just started name calling and danced around anything else.  Way to show your own intelligence.  Conflict is sometimes neccessary.  Its a sad but true fact.  I would never choose killing over reasoning, however some people cannot be reasoned with and if you believe all can, then I have just as much a right to call you retarded.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

I find it hard to believe people like you still exist. Why choose evil instead of good?!

Terrorists do evil. Your responce is create more evil. Their responce is create even more evil, and your responce will be creating even more evil resulting in the vicious circle of evil and suffering. Good job on helping ruining this world.

----------


## tkdyo

would you elaborate please?  what you said was purely subjective and vauge.

----------


## Universal Mind

> So according to you, terrorists attack america for no reason at all? Just for fun? Do you truly believe that?



I don't know where you got that.  Are you just making up wild ideas as you go?  





> And yes, you do target innocent people. You bomb big cities, innocent people are bound to die. And you are also killing your own people. Americans are dying in the war FOR NOTHING.



No, we do not target innocent people, and we do not randomly bomb arbitrary places in cities.  Get your facts straight before you say this crazy stuff on the internet.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Seriously.  We have very high tech weaponry designed to hit very specific government and other enemy targets, and we announce bombings to civilians so they will get out of the way.  The terrorists you are refusing to speak out against do specifically aim at civilians.  Let's see if you ever speak out against them.  

Refute this, if you think you can... 





> The reasons behind the war: enforcement of ceasefire (Yep, the ceasefire existed, and the Hussein regime violated it on several terrorism counts for 12 years), spreading of democracy and capitalism to very backward ass and impoverished region that breeds suicide terrorists with stone age mentalities (They have a democracy now, and the people vote in higher percentages than Americans, even in the face of death threats.), attempted collection of WMD's from a suicide terrorist government (as reported by many, many sources), overthrowing of a suicide terrorists government (mission accomplished), pressure surrounding governments into dismantling of WMD programs (worked on Libbya), liberate a nation from nightmare government that engaged in genocide (mission accomplished), give terrorists a scary reason not to attack the United States (no domestic attacks from foreign terrorists since 9/11/01).

----------


## ChaybaChayba

You are angry at terrorists for killing people but then you do the exact same thing. How retarded can you be?

----------


## tkdyo

Im glad to see you are so passionate on your position, but I must profess, war is not always evil.  War is a reality of humanity.  In this day and age, there are some who have such a one track mind that diplomacy still doesnt work.  It is never joyous, but it is necessary to ensure the safety of your loved ones where diplomacy fails.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You are angry at terrorists for killing people but then you do the exact same thing. How retarded can you be?



We do not target civilians.  We change governments.  Sometimes civilians accidentally get killed during such efforts, but it is not what we want.  We have done a lot to create weaponry that minimizes civilian casualties as much as possible.  Have the terrorists done that?  Of course not.  If we were really evil, the Middle East would be a sheet of glass with American flag decorated oil wells all over it.  But look at all of the bullshit we are willing to go through instead.  

What do you suggest we do?  All I see you doing is complaining about the way we are doing things.  What specifically do you suggest we do?

Don't forget to respond to this...





> The reasons behind the war: enforcement of ceasefire (Yep, the ceasefire existed, and the Hussein regime violated it on several terrorism counts for 12 years), spreading of democracy and capitalism to very backward ass and impoverished region that breeds suicide terrorists with stone age mentalities (They have a democracy now, and the people vote in higher percentages than Americans, even in the face of death threats.), attempted collection of WMD's from a suicide terrorist government (as reported by many, many sources), overthrowing of a suicide terrorists government (mission accomplished), pressure surrounding governments into dismantling of WMD programs (worked on Libbya), liberate a nation from nightmare government that engaged in genocide (mission accomplished), give terrorists a scary reason not to attack the United States (no domestic attacks from foreign terrorists since 9/11/01).



You already stuck your neck out and said what we are doing is worth nothing.  Back that up.  Refute my above quote.  Don't back away from it this time.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

First it was weapons of mass destruction. They didn't find any.
Then suddenly 9/11 happened.

What a coincidence.

Of course you don't get attacked by terrorists anymore, they do not exist. (Please, do define a terrorist.)

If they did, they obviously would have retaliated. If you truly believe the terrorists were waiting for you in Iraq to get killed, howcome you still haven't found Osama Bin Laden?

----------


## tkdyo

9/11 happened first

Then weapons of mass destruction, and yes we had satellite photos of it.  We havnt found them, gee what a hit to our credebility, some goes for bin laden, I guess they are both imaginary.  

a terrorist is someone who is cowardly enough to hide among civilians, then have the nerve to attack civilians on purpose, and thats exactly what suicide bombers do, dont try to glorify it.  Sure maybe to you the fact that sometimes civilians get caught in the crossfire from us may seem just as bad, but maybe you should be taking a look at the cowards who hide among the civilians instead.

Plus you completely ignored UM's points, way to dance around again up on your pedestal.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

Heres how I feel about it. Straight to the point.

----------


## tkdyo

ok, so the first one was mostly about gays in the military, and then he falls in to spewing ignorant bs about us targeting children and just having an army for the sake of killing other countries.  part about selling weapons was funny though.

now the second vid.  Chris Rock?  You are going to let Chris Rock speak for you?  Good lord, his job IS to blow up things so that is jokes are more funny.  I did agree with him on one point though, that being a dem or rep is stupid, just take each issue individually.  

So, neither of those vids addressed the actual arguing points.

BTW  Jeff Dunham is much better than either of those two guys

----------


## ChaybaChayba

Bill Hicks is one of the kings of comedy, claiming some nutcase who talks to his own hands all the time and can't stop using the H-throat sound in all his jokes, is funnier than him is just blasphemy! Sure it was funny the first time, but not the 109210921 times after that.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Bill Hicks is one of the kings of comedy, claiming some nutcase who talks to his own hands all the time and can't stop using the H-throat sound in all his jokes, is funnier than him is just blasphemy! Sure it was funny the first time, but not the 109210921 times after that.



Bill Hicks is my favotire comedian, but he does not understand war.  

Chaybachayba, with all due respect, you seem to not have even the most basic understanding of what the war in Iraq is about.  You need to learn at least the basics before you argue about it.

----------


## tkdyo

lol, Im sure he has plenty of great jokes...but imho, most of the kings of comedy just arnt that funny.  and Im pretty sure most jokes arnt funny 109210921 times after  :wink2:

----------


## ChaybaChayba

According to you, nobody understands war. Not Bill Hicks, not me, only you.

The war is about stealing oil, raping women and killing childeren. I do not approve of your retarderd methods of 'peace'.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

Bill Hicks sure made funny sounds with his mouth, but like many here have said, the war was illegally waged under false pretenses, and our wonderful leaders also lied to the world, not just us...ever wonder why we are so hated?

----------


## Universal Mind

> According to you, nobody understands war. Not Bill Hicks, not me, only you.



Wrong.  I said you and Bill Hicks don't understand war.  That does not mean only I do.  There are lots and lots of people in the government and not in the government who understand war far better than I do.  

Do you see how you misrepresent information?  





> The war is about stealing oil, raping women and killing childeren. I do not approve of your retarderd methods of 'peace'.



You are either profoundly misinformed or just being a troll.  If you are a troll, then congratulations.  It is so original.

----------


## tkdyo

> Bill Hicks sure made funny sounds with his mouth, but like many here have said, the war was illegally waged under false pretenses, and our wonderful leaders also lied to the world, not just us...ever wonder why we are so hated?



The link with Al Queda may have been wrong, but we had satellite pictures for where they were developing the WMDs and just because we havnt found then doesnt mean they dont exist, just like Osama.  Plus, Iraq had many many counts of cease fire violation.  Too bad people never think about those points and only think how the media tells them.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

If you have a bad regime, America will invade your country, rape your women, bomb your cities, steal your oil, burn your homes, and kill your childeren.

If you have a terrorist, America will invade your country, rape your women, bomb your cities, steal your oil, burn your homes, and kill your childeren.

If you have weapons of mass destruction, America will invade your country, rape your women, bomb your cities, steal your oil, burn your homes, and kill your childeren.

If you don't have democracy, America will invade your country, rape your women, bomb your cities, steal your oil, burn your homes, and kill your childeren.

America brings peace to the world. America is good.  America loves the world. Resistance is futile. War is inevitable.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

lol... @ CHa

----------


## Universal Mind

> The link with Al Queda may have been wrong



The Hussein regime was having meetings with members of Al Qaeda, and Zarqawi spent time in an Iraqi hospital, reportedly "harbored" by the Hussein regime.  That is about the full extent of the connection.  The real worry was what would happen as a result of the fact that we were their common bitter enemy.  That was definitely a reason for major concern.  Al Qaeda + WMD's = completely out of the question.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

Bin Laden is best buddies with Bush. Get a clue. While your fellow americans are dying on the battlefields, Bush is smoking a spliff together with Bin laden.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Bin Laden is best buddies with Bush. Get a clue. You're being fooled. While your fellow americans are dying on the battlefields, Bush is smoking a spliff together with Bin laden.



Yes, and Elvis Presley is their weed dealer.

----------


## tkdyo

now wait a minute Cha, werent you in the other thread the one who said people in the government are just like us?

@ UM, yeah, thats true.  It was just presented as different in the news

----------


## Original Poster

I just find it funny leaders all over the world, including some of our best allies, violate sanctions and cease fire agreements and commit war crimes and stuff and we go after Iraq.  Saddam Hussein had evidence of disarming, that's the scrap metal that used to be weapons.  I mean doesn't it strike you as odd with all these other countries crying out for democracy we bankrupt ourselves on one guy?  No ties to Al Queda, no weapons.  As has been revealed, their evidence was bullshit, they pushed this fucking war for that start for business interests.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I just find it funny leaders all over the world, including some of our best allies, violate sanctions and cease fire agreements and commit war crimes and stuff and we go after Iraq. Saddam Hussein had evidence of disarming, that's the scrap metal that used to be weapons. I mean doesn't it strike you as odd with all these other countries crying out for democracy we bankrupt ourselves on one guy? No ties to Al Queda, no weapons. As has been revealed, their evidence was bullshit, they pushed this fucking war for that start for business interests.



How do you know there were no weapons, and what about the rest of the list of reasons for the war?

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> I just find it funny leaders all over the world, including some of our best allies, violate sanctions and cease fire agreements and commit war crimes and stuff and we go after Iraq.  Saddam Hussein had evidence of disarming, that's the scrap metal that used to be weapons.  I mean doesn't it strike you as odd with all these other countries crying out for democracy we bankrupt ourselves on one guy?  No ties to Al Queda, no weapons.  As has been revealed, their evidence was bullshit, they pushed this fucking war for that start for business interests.



Yup, well said.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yup, well said.



Then I pose the same question to you.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> How do you know there were no weapons, and what about the rest of the list of reasons for the war?



I do not know for sure, none of us do...my opinion is just that, an opinion that war is a terrible thing, no matter what the fucking justification is.

War = death

In my opinion, there is no reason for war, unless your country is physically invaded by an occupying force, so in a way I do not blame middle eastern people for attacking our boys, we are occupying permanently around 130 bases in nearly 130 countries, if that doesn't spell world domination I don't know what does.

My point is, war is a terrible thing reserved for LAST FUCKING RESORT.

Do you really think Saddam would of invaded the us and occupied us?

Do you really think a few terror attacks will stop our country from living on? 

If we never went to war, on iraq, or terror, we would NOT be in a recession and we would have 4,086 soldiers ALIVE with their FAMILIES.

And those 1,000,000 dead iraqis would also be alive, because their government was a regime, that gives us the right to tell them to change into a republic?

ITS NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS WHAT OTHER NATIONS DO, we need to take america's big fucking nose and stick it elsewhere, because we've been sticking our nose into the middle east for far too long.


and lastly, The oldest trick in the book for presidents to gain power, is to MAKE ENEMIES.

----------


## Original Poster

> How do you know there were no weapons, and what about the rest of the list of reasons for the war?



Here are the reasons for war as far as I remember.  It's hard to find the original reasons now because the administration wants to forget it ever tried to sell this bullshit.

1. Posed a threat to the national intersts of United States, Europe and Israel in particular

Studies show Iraq has become a nesting ground for terrorist activity since the beginning of the war.  I say become, as in terrorist activity increased  to extremes.  The statistics don't agree with each other, but it's pretty clear if you want to turn a c ountry into a terrorist recruitment station, do what we did to Iraq.  So much for our national security.

2. Saddam Hussein might have WMDs

I'm sorry, but there's over a dozen countries the United States has shaky relations with that DO have WMDs.  I assert that if Bush really thought Hussein had WMDs, we would have never attacked in the first place because they would have posed *too* much of a threat.  The Iraq Survey group said they disarmed after 1991, when sanctions were placed on the country.  Now, it seems the idea was he had this huge underground warehouse where he stored all this uranium without anyone noticing even though Weapons Inspectors came and found nothing.  They concluded Saddam Hussein had plans to continue in the manufacture after the sanctions were lifted.  Now, he may not have been a nice guy, but he wasn't retarded.  If he was honestly showing people he was preparing to start making WMDs once the US would start letting him again, where was he making all the secret ones he was hiding out in the desert?

And let's just add for the sake of argument, that technically I can't prove he didn't have weapons.  If a girl doesn't say no when you're about to have sex, obviously it means you should go ahead and do it, right?  I mean, we should have gone to war anyway despite that we turned the country into a terrorist recruitment center just because maybe... maybe Saddam Hussein has Gandalf locked in his basement and we need to free him!

3. Democracy

Let's go save the people of Sudan, Thailand, Pakistan, Haiti or Uganda?  You know how many terrorist attacks occur on the streets of those countries per day?  Do you have any idea what happens to people that disagree with their government there?  Why Iraq?  What made Iraq so special?  We are bankrupt now, as a nation.  We owe trillions of dollars to communists over Iraq.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The reasons behind the war: enforcement of ceasefire (Yep, the ceasefire existed, and the Hussein regime violated it on several terrorism counts for 12 years), spreading of democracy and capitalism to very backward ass and impoverished region that breeds suicide terrorists with stone age mentalities (They have a democracy now, and the people vote in higher percentages than Americans, even in the face of death threats.), attempted collection of WMD's from a suicide terrorist government (as reported by many, many sources), overthrowing of a suicide terrorists government (mission accomplished), pressure surrounding governments into dismantling of WMD programs (worked on Libbya), liberate a nation from nightmare government that engaged in genocide (mission accomplished), give terrorists a scary reason not to attack the United States (no domestic attacks from foreign terrorists since 9/11/01).



It was the sum total of those reasons.  I did not claim that you could pick any one alone and it would automatically stand on its own as full justification.  It was about the full picture.

----------


## Original Poster

I mostly responded to all of that.  I don't know where you're getting your sources, probably because you don't link them, but I looked it up on wikipedia and actually there's no evidence that saddam hussein's regime was a suicide terrorist government nor that he was collecting WMDs.  In fact, by overthrowing his government we removed the only thing keeping the country out of civil war, and now we're spending billions of dollars a year doing what he was doing for free.

As far as liberating a a nation from a nightmarish government, read my last post, it's addressed in point 3.

And lastly, learn to count, its still been a longer period of time between 9/11 and the previous attack than 9/11 and now.  Furthermore, terrorist attacks have become MORE frequent worldwide.

----------


## Dreamworld

> Here are the reasons for war as far as I remember.  It's hard to find the original reasons now because the administration wants to forget it ever tried to sell this bullshit.
> 
> 1. Posed a threat to the national intersts of United States, Europe and Israel in particular
> 
> Studies show Iraq has become a nesting ground for terrorist activity since the beginning of the war.  I say become, as in terrorist activity increased  to extremes.  The statistics don't agree with each other, but it's pretty clear if you want to turn a c ountry into a terrorist recruitment station, do what we did to Iraq.  So much for our national security.
> 
> 2. Saddam Hussein might have WMDs
> 
> I'm sorry, but there's over a dozen countries the United States has shaky relations with that DO have WMDs.  I assert that if Bush really thought Hussein had WMDs, we would have never attacked in the first place because they would have posed *too* much of a threat.  The Iraq Survey group said they disarmed after 1991, when sanctions were placed on the country.  Now, it seems the idea was he had this huge underground warehouse where he stored all this uranium without anyone noticing even though Weapons Inspectors came and found nothing.  They concluded Saddam Hussein had plans to continue in the manufacture after the sanctions were lifted.  Now, he may not have been a nice guy, but he wasn't retarded.  If he was honestly showing people he was preparing to start making WMDs once the US would start letting him again, where was he making all the secret ones he was hiding out in the desert?
> ...



Checkmate.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> (no domestic attacks from foreign terrorists since 9/11/01).



The Iraq War hasn't done much to make the USA safer its done the opposite in regards to the threat of terrorism. All it has done is win you many new enemies and become more detested throughout the world (yes the world). If anything the Iraq War has threatned american security for pricesely this very reason. 

Alot less people would be "taking aim" at the USA and the West in general if the Invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq never happend. Look at Europe and what they have gone through for supporting your wars. Why not long ago a young man in the UK attempted to explode himself in an English cafe. 

Iraq War= clusterfuck for everyone, no winners except for Halliberton

----------


## Sagea

Funny how most of the people talking about it seem to think they know what it's like over there, before and after Saddam.

And they tend to make vague generalizations about a kind of war that they cannot begin to understand, because they've never bothered to read up about it. They seem to assume all warfare is akin to WWII or WWI.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I mostly responded to all of that. I don't know where you're getting your sources, probably because you don't link them, but I looked it up on wikipedia and actually there's no evidence that saddam hussein's regime was a suicide terrorist government nor that he was collecting WMDs.



False.  Look harder.  Most of my sources are not on the internet, but the internet does have plenty of backing.  I know you didn't miss the story about the WMD terrorist attack on the Kurds.  Or did you?  





> In fact, by overthrowing his government we removed the only thing keeping the country out of civil war, and now we're spending billions of dollars a year doing what he was doing for free.



Civil war is one of the disadvantages of the transition period, but we still liberated Iraq from a genocidal, international terrorist government.  After the transition period, Iraq will be on its way to becoming one of the greatest nations in the world, just like Japan, Germany, and other countries whose governments we have changed.   Japan and Germany are the second and third wealthiest nations in the world, by the way.  





> As far as liberating a a nation from a nightmarish government, read my last post, it's addressed in point 3.



I responded to point 3.  I said that I was not claiming any reason could stand alone as sole justification.  You talked as though I was saying otherwise.  Some of the reasons probably could stand alone, but I did not make that claim in the post you were responding to.  You asked in your response, "Why Iraq?"  The answer:  the totality of the reasons I listed.  





> And lastly, learn to count, its still been a longer period of time between 9/11 and the previous attack than 9/11 and now. Furthermore, terrorist attacks have become MORE frequent worldwide.



That does not change the fact that the particular goal I discussed has been met.  

Don't start acting like a shit-head again.  Let's see how stable your meditation has made you.  





> The Iraq War hasn't done much to make the USA safer its done the opposite in regards to the threat of terrorism. All it has done is win you many new enemies and become more detested throughout the world (yes the world). If anything the Iraq War has threatned american security for pricesely this very reason. 
> 
> 
> 
> Alot less people would be "taking aim" at the USA and the West in general if the Invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq never happend. Look at Europe and what they have gone through for supporting your wars. Why not long ago a young man in the UK attempted to explode himself in an English cafe. 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq War= clusterfuck for everyone, no winners except for Halliberton





We have taken down two terrorist governments.  That is worth a great deal.  Those were major power sources for terrorists.  We replaced them with democracies that will grow to stabilize the region and be great allies.  We have captured and killed a lot of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.  The terrorists you think we have created are obviously people who already had it in them to become terrorists, and the vacuum we have created was designed to suck them up too.  

I don't give a shit what France and Canada think of us.  They know damn well where they would be without us.  


Folks, this thread has been around a while now.  A lot of people are repeating old points.  You should read what has already been written before you post.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

I just don't think this war on terror will accomplish anything. Terror has always been around since the beginning of humanity terrorism has existed, and terrorism will exist in the end..we cannot rid the earth of terrorism

Terrorism is a tactic, you cannot have a war on a tactic...thats like having a war on drugs, another pointless war which there is no end to, the war on drugs and terror are just scams, the war in afghanistan was for the pipelines to be built to the caspian sea

And iraq was invaded so we can establish a base in the middle east.

Ask the Rockefellers, they admit this all...they are proud of it.

----------


## Sagea

> I just don't think this war on terror will accomplish anything. Terror has always been around since the beginning of humanity terrorism has existed, and terrorism will exist in the end..we cannot rid the earth of terrorism
> 
> Terrorism is a tactic, you cannot have a war on a tactic...thats like having a war on drugs, another pointless war which there is no end to, the war on drugs and terror are just scams, the war in afghanistan was for the pipelines to be built to the caspian sea
> 
> And iraq was invaded so we can establish a base in the middle east.
> 
> Ask the Rockefellers, they admit this all...they are proud of it.



It is more appropriately the "Islamic terrorists war on us" than War on Terror. Us not just being the U.S.

We aren't seeking to defeat terrorism specifically. We're seeking to defeat Islamic terrorism that threatens us and human rights all across the globe. How do you defeat an idea? With a better one. Psy ops. Learn from some SOF guys.

And stop talking about stuff that you really don't know about. To say something like those reasons you stated, pulled out of your ass with nothing to back it up, is silly.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> We have taken down two terrorist governments. That is worth a great deal. Those were major power sources for terrorists. We replaced them with democracies that will grow to stabilize the region and be great allies. We have captured and killed a lot of Al Qaeda and other terrorists. The terrorists you think we have created are obviously people who already had it in them to become terrorists, and the vacuum we have created was designed to suck them up too. 
> 
> I don't give a shit what France and Canada think of us. They know damn well where they would be without us. 
> 
> 
> Folks, this thread has been around a while now. A lot of people are repeating old points. You should read what has already been written before you post.



 
My point was that america is not safer as a result of invading peoples countries...far from it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> My point was that america is not safer as a result of invading peoples countries...far from it.



I disagree, and the wars are not all about right now.  They are about very long term goals.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> I disagree, and the wars are not all about right now. They are about very long term goals.



How do you disagree? As a result of the two invasions anti westernism (not just anti americansm) has grown consderably. 7/7 bombings and the madrid train bombings all have to do with those countries connections to the invsions of Iraq and Afghanistan for instance.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

> It is more appropriately the "Islamic terrorists war on us" than War on Terror. Us not just being the U.S.
> 
> We aren't seeking to defeat terrorism specifically. We're seeking to defeat Islamic terrorism that threatens us and human rights all across the globe. How do you defeat an idea? With a better one. Psy ops. Learn from some SOF guys.
> 
> And stop talking about stuff that you really don't know about. To say something like those reasons you stated, pulled out of your ass with nothing to back it up, is silly.



Yes, and the reason you people don't seem to understand they declared jihad on us because dumb fuck bill clinton weekly bombed iraq and bush before him, and our occupation of the arabian peninsula is the reason we are in a holy war with the islamic terrorists.

If we left their godamn peninsula alone, they would eventually forget about us and find someone else to declare jihad on.

The war on terror isn't required.

----------


## Original Poster

There's a reason why I took down ALL your points, and not just one.  The fact is any of your points with any real value can be said about dozens of nations in the World, to a far greater extent.  

Saddam Hussein committed an atrocious crime a decade before we decided to do anything about it.

You argue your point by throwing adjectives in when describing the governments.  They are suicidal international terrorist governments... how?  How are they suicidal?  How are they terrorists?  How are any of their actions related to an international anything?

Look at the effect of our occupation: the opium market is sky-rocketing in Afghanistan and if we weren't spending billions of dollars and wasting our army's time in Iraq, they'd be in a Civil War.

----------


## Sagea

> Yes, and the reason you people don't seem to understand they declared jihad on us because dumb fuck bill clinton weekly bombed iraq and bush before him, and our occupation of the arabian peninsula is the reason we are in a holy war with the islamic terrorists.
> 
> If we left their godamn peninsula alone, they would eventually forget about us and find someone else to declare jihad on.
> 
> The war on terror isn't required.



Erm no. Fail. That's you listening to the Islamists. 

Bill Clinton was extremely weak on the terrorists in general. And not only he. Before 9/11 our whole gubbmint was. Even though it was pretty apparent in the eyes of many SOF and CIA people that it was the next biggest threat.

We are in a war with the Islamists because they have to have a scapegoat for how backwards the Middle East is in general. So they blame us (AGAIN, NOT just the U.S.), instead of the fact that their religious ways demand they stay out of the 21st century.

----------


## ChrissyMaria

I give up.

----------


## psychology student

> Why not long ago a young man in the UK attempted to explode himself in an English cafe.



Be careful construing this with a terrorist attack as the individual in question had a history of mental illness.

----------


## Sagea

> I give up.



Even if we completely and totally left the Middle East period, do you really think the Islamists would leave us alone? Shows a lot of ignorance on your part if so.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> Be careful construing this with a terrorist attack as the individual in question had a history of mental illness.



That may be so but keep in mind that there were very likely extremists manipulating him towards that act

----------


## ChaybaChayba

Why would they want to attack you anyway? They must have been brainwashed into believing americans terrorize the world  ::lol::

----------


## Original Poster

> Erm no. Fail. That's you listening to the Islamists. 
> 
> Bill Clinton was extremely weak on the terrorists in general. And not only he. Before 9/11 our whole gubbmint was. Even though it was pretty apparent in the eyes of many SOF and CIA people that it was the next biggest threat.
> 
> We are in a war with the Islamists because they have to have a scapegoat for how backwards the Middle East is in general. So they blame us (AGAIN, NOT just the U.S.), instead of the fact that their religious ways demand they stay out of the 21st century.



That depends on who's a terrorist and who's not.  Who's more likely to commit a terrorist attack?

We've had essentially the same foreign policy since the Reagan administration, and it's been a very aggressive one.  The CIA has acted very aggressively against regimes that pose any threat to American Interests, and in turn have also warned us about the blowback these activities were causing all over the world.  We have occupied the Middle East the entire time, and we have not stopped bombings strategic locations in order to stop any threat to American Interests.

That's the cause of terror in the first place.  There's no more of a possibility to "be hard on terror" with more foreign occupation than there is to put out a fire with gasoline.

----------


## Sagea

> Why would they want to attack you anyway? They must have been brainwashed into believing americans terrorize the world



I already listed the reason(s) Islamists want to kill WESTERNERS and non-Muslims. Wahhabism is a pretty evil sect. Research it sometime.

----------


## Sagea

> That depends on who's a terrorist and who's not.  Who's more likely to commit a terrorist attack?
> 
> We've had essentially the same foreign policy since the Reagan administration, and it's been a very aggressive one.  The CIA has acted very aggressively against regimes that pose any threat to American Interests, and in turn have also warned us about the blowback these activities were causing all over the world.  We have occupied the Middle East the entire time, and we have not stopped bombings strategic locations in order to stop any threat to American Interests.
> 
> That's the cause of terror in the first place.  There's no more of a possibility to "be hard on terror" with more foreign occupation than there is to put out a fire with gasoline.



You should read up on why terrorism and revolutionaries come about. The War of the Flea. We did not have a direct role in the formation of terrorism. At all. Again, they need a scapegoat - we're it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> How do you disagree? As a result of the two invasions anti westernism (not just anti americansm) has grown consderably. 7/7 bombings and the madrid train bombings all have to do with those countries connections to the invsions of Iraq and Afghanistan for instance.



There were a lot of foreign terrorist attacks in the years before 9/11.  We took down two terrorist governments.  That puts a gigantic dent in the ability of terrorists to get their hands on major weapons, training, and funding.  The dent is only going to grow.  





> Yes, and the reason you people don't seem to understand they declared jihad on us because dumb fuck bill clinton weekly bombed iraq and bush before him, and our occupation of the arabian peninsula is the reason we are in a holy war with the islamic terrorists.
> 
> If we left their godamn peninsula alone, they would eventually forget about us and find someone else to declare jihad on.
> 
> The war on terror isn't required.



You need to read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

Do you see how deep their mental disturbance is?  





> There's a reason why I took down ALL your points, and not just one. The fact is any of your points with any real value can be said about dozens of nations in the World, to a far greater extent.



You only responded to three of my points. 

We don't invade those other countries because they do not involve the same kind of list of justifications.  Do you see what I am saying?  





> Saddam Hussein committed an atrocious crime a decade before we decided to do anything about it.



That does not mean the rest of the list had compiled yet.  Do you understand what I am saying?  





> You argue your point by throwing adjectives in when describing the governments. They are suicidal international terrorist governments... how? How are they suicidal? How are they terrorists? How are any of their actions related to an international anything?



Hussein funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and he provided fincancial incentives for Palestinians suicide bombers in Israel.  





> Look at the effect of our occupation: the opium market is sky-rocketing in Afghanistan and if we weren't spending billions of dollars and wasting our army's time in Iraq, they'd be in a Civil War.



It's a good thing our military is there to keep the civil war situation under control.  

Opium and heroin need to be legal.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I mostly responded to all of that. I don't know where you're getting your sources, probably because you don't link them, but I looked it up on wikipedia and actually there's no evidence that saddam hussein's regime was a suicide terrorist government nor that he was collecting WMDs.



Along with the WMD terrorist attack on the Kurds and Israel's destroying of a Hussein regime nuclear facility, here is something to chew on...

http://insidestraight.typepad.com/th..._husseins.html

----------


## Captain Sleepalot

> False.  Look harder.  Most of my sources are not on the internet, but the internet does have plenty of backing.



List your sources then.





> Civil war is one of the disadvantages of the transition period, but we still liberated Iraq from a genocidal, international terrorist government.  After the transition period, Iraq will be on its way to becoming one of the greatest nations in the world, just like Japan, Germany, and other countries whose governments we have changed.   Japan and Germany are the second and third wealthiest nations in the world, by the way.



Actually, civil war was the result of disbanding the Iraqi army, not guarding the Iraqi ammunition dumps, providing no civil control after Baghdad fell and allowing Islamic extremists to take over the leadership positions in the communities. All of which, by the way, was a result of President Bush and his gang putting a group of unqualified civilians in charge of the aftermath of a FUCKING WAR.

----------


## Universal Mind

> List your sources then.



Practically every news corporation that is big and competitive enough to have something to lose by lying, and some sites on the internet like the one I linked above, which has its own links in it.  Make sure you read it.  

http://insidestraight.typepad.com/th..._husseins.html

What are yours?  





> Actually, civil war was the result of disbanding the Iraqi army, not guarding the Iraqi ammunition dumps, providing no civil control after Baghdad fell and allowing Islamic extremists to take over the leadership positions in the communities. All of which, by the way, was a result of President Bush and his gang putting a group of unqualified civilians in charge of the aftermath of a FUCKING WAR.



Oh, so now it's a problem that Iraqis had too much responsibility?  What you suggest in Monday morning hindsight is that we needed a higher level of occupation?  You must be happy about all of the progress that has been made.

----------


## Dreamworld

> Even if we completely and totally left the Middle East period, do you really think the Islamists would leave us alone? Shows a lot of ignorance on your part if so.



So you agree we should have never started the war? We have had ONE terrorist attack from the middle east. It wasn't even from Iraq!

----------


## tkdyo

We've had more than one, before 9/11 there was the first WTC bombing, the USS Coal and an attack on the embassy in namibia.  However, its a bit too late for any "woulda, shoulda, coulda" What we need to do now is not leave Iraq in shambles like we did before.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

So let me get this straight, if a group of belgian terrorists would destroy a building in America, you would invade Belgium and bomb the fuck out of us?

----------


## Captain Sleepalot

> Oh, so now it's a problem that Iraqis had too much responsibility?  What you suggest in Monday morning hindsight is that we needed a higher level of occupation?  You must be happy about all of the progress that has been made.



Actually, we *did* need a higher level of occupation. But more to the point we needed a higher level of law and order immediately following the fall of Baghdad, which could have been provided by the Marines and soldiers on the ground during the first few months of the occupation.

Regardless of how one feels about why we went to war, it is lunacy to defend an administration that so badly mishandled the aftermath of the war and in the process put the lives of our troops in danger. There was no insurgency until Paul Bremer gave the order (without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the commanders on the ground) to disband the Iraqi army and essentially release heavily armed Saddam loyalists into the general population.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

This is what I don't get. How many dead Americans. How much money spent. How much mess made? And what for?

Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was made by the USA. He worked for the CIA before be became politically prominent in Iraq. He was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980s, and received substantial US military and financial aid. So what's the point of funding Saddam as a dictator in the first place, then taking him away again later. Why not just not fund saddam in the first place?



Also what has that got to do with Osama Bin Laden and 911 anyway.... Why go and fight something they created. Saddams USA funded dictatorship, as a reaction to what was suppose to be Osama bin laden's 911 attack? Who also works for the CIA. "Tim Osman" was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. Which explains why he is not in jail yet.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Just some obvious questions any normal person asks themself. What the hell is going on anyway.....

----------


## Universal Mind

> So let me get this straight, if a group of belgian terrorists would destroy a building in America, you would invade Belgium and bomb the fuck out of us?



No.   ::roll::   We would have gone after the Belgian government if they were harboring those terrorists and having other terrorism support policies.  Please read about the basics of this war so you will stop saying things like that.  





> Actually, we *did* need a higher level of occupation. But more to the point we needed a higher level of law and order immediately following the fall of Baghdad, which could have been provided by the Marines and soldiers on the ground during the first few months of the occupation.
> 
> Regardless of how one feels about why we went to war, it is lunacy to defend an administration that so badly mishandled the aftermath of the war and in the process put the lives of our troops in danger. There was no insurgency until Paul Bremer gave the order (without consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the commanders on the ground) to disband the Iraqi army and essentially release heavily armed Saddam loyalists into the general population.



Well, hindsight is 20/20.  A lot of things could have been done better.  The purpose of disbanding the Iraqi military was to take power away from the group we were fighting at the time.  A lot of them were not loyal, so once disbanded, we did not have to fight them.  





> This is what I don't get. How many dead Americans. How much money spent. How much mess made? And what for?
> 
> Saddam Hussein's brutal reign was made by the USA. He worked for the CIA before be became politically prominent in Iraq. He was one of America's closet Mideast allies during the 1980s, and received substantial US military and financial aid. So what's the point of funding Saddam as a dictator in the first place, then taking him away again later. Why not just not fund saddam in the first place?



The Hussein regime was our ally against Iran.  It was, of course, an alliance gone bad.  They ended up turning on us and being terrible in many other ways.  





> Also what has that got to do with Osama Bin Laden and 911 anyway.... Why go and fight something they created. Saddams USA funded dictatorship, as a reaction to what was suppose to be Osama bin laden's 911 attack? Who also works for the CIA. "Tim Osman" was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. Which explains why he is not in jail yet.
> 
> And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Just some obvious questions any normal person asks themself. What the hell is going on anyway.....



We overthrew the Taliban that was harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  We also went directly after Al Qaeda, missing Bin Laden but capturing or killing many of the top leaders.  That was our direct reaction.  In addition, we began a policy of going after terrorist enemy regimes in general as a preventative measure.  That was part of the reason for overthrowing the Hussein regime.  It is like when a street gang terrorizes a mall and the mayor begins a new program against street gangs.  After the thugs who terrorized the mall get arrested, the city goes after other street gangs too as a preventative measure.  It does not mean the other street gangs they go after are the same one that was terrorizing that mall.  

That is another topic that has already been covered thoroughly in this thread.  Please read what has already been written before you comment.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

> No.    We would have gone after the Belgian government if they were harboring those terrorists and having other terrorism support policies.



Lol... are you actually serious?

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

I think he is being sarcastic. Atleast I hope so.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I think he is being sarcastic. Atleast I hope so.



If the Belgian government were an international terrorist enemy government harboring terrorists who just attacked us, we should not go after them?  Please explain.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Ever herd of the word love.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Ever herd of the word love.



Yes.  How does it overthrow terrorist governments?

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

How are you going to defeat them. With stronger terrorism? How is love weak or bad......It's better than terrorism. If it's not love, then it's terrorism isn't it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> How are you going to defeat them. With stronger terrorism? How is love weak or bad......It's better than terrorism. If it's not love, then it's terrorism isn't it.



So we should have invaded Afghanistan with love?  That would have changed the Taliban's terrorist ways?  Would they have handed us Bin Laden if we had promised to love him?

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

you didn't answer my question

----------


## Universal Mind

> you didn't answer my question



Your question wasn't rhetorical?  

We already defeated them.  We overthrew them and replaced them with a democracy.  The Taliban is no longer the government of Afghanistan.  We did not exactly go in and love them away to accomplish that goal.  *Do you think we should have? * 

No, not just any act of war falls under the definition of terrorism, and not just anything that isn't love is terrorism.  Being dizzy is not love either.  Is it terrorism?

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> Being dizzy is not love either. Is it terrorism?



Is a tire a car? You are asking inappropriate questions as the effect. You are using questions as answers to me. And statements to play dodgeball. Yet the cause was not this thread at all. As I made the cause of the question on the other thread concerning the original cause itself and what it is. Because someone knew in advance. And you still can't see the effect of questions and answers as being the cause and effect of the same answer which is the original cause. You get above and choose your destiny through something more important than knowledge. And that is how you defeat terrorism. Or am I saying this too out of context for you to understand or believe? You have to beat me first before you can believe anything against me. And you can't beat me by ignoring what I said. *Saying statements and questions does not make what I said go away.*

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Phoenix, your proposals are evasive. Even your reasoning is evasive. I assume you believe we should have done nothing? A bullet to the head works much better, and a quick death like that is generous for these people. They deserve worse. But fuck it.

Whats the difference between a dead terrorist and a dead deer? There would be skid marks in front of the deer if I were driving.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Is a tire a car? You are asking inappropriate questions as the effect. You are using questions as answers to me. And statements to play dodgeball. Yet the cause was not this thread at all. As I made the cause of the question on the other thread concerning the original cause itself and what it is. Because someone knew in advance. And you still can't see the effect of questions and answers as being the cause and effect of the same answer which is the original cause. You get above and choose your destiny through something more important than knowledge. And that is how you defeat terrorism. Or am I saying this too out of context for you to understand or believe? You have to beat me first before you can believe anything against me. And you can't beat me by ignoring what I said. *Saying statements and questions does not make what I said go away.*



It is very simple.  You said if something is not love, it is terrorism.  I gave you an example of a situation where something is not love and is also not terrorism to disprove your assertion.  Get it?  Now answer my question. 

By the way, are you trolling?

----------


## Sagea

> So you agree we should have never started the war? We have had ONE terrorist attack from the middle east. It wasn't even from Iraq!



One? Oh please. So my dad was in the middle of 200 people killed in the Kenyan embassy bombing and you are telling me that?




> So let me get this straight, if a group of belgian terrorists would destroy a building in America, you would invade Belgium and bomb the fuck out of us?



As others said, only if the government was harboring them. Even so, if our military has wised up any on fighting an insurgency, bombs and direct action would not be used so much.




> How are you going to defeat them. With stronger terrorism? How is love weak or bad......It's better than terrorism. If it's not love, then it's terrorism isn't it.



Fuckin retarded. Everything is fairies and unicorns, if only people would all love each other! Goddamn idealistic bullshit.

----------


## The Tao

> Fuckin retarded. Everything is fairies and unicorns, if only people would all love each other! Goddamn idealistic bullshit.



^ I agree. While I haven't read all the pages and posts here, I have read a little bit. Enough to know that Minervas Phoenix is either an idiot, or trolling, or both.

----------


## dragonoverlord

> So let me get this straight, if a group of belgian terrorists would destroy a building in America, you would invade Belgium and bomb the fuck out of us?



Dont worry man. Belgium's a white country. There not gonna bomb fellow Aryans....

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Dont worry man. Belgium's a white country. There not gonna bomb fellow Aryans....



Damn. Here I thought it was my duty as an American to kill anyone who talks different than me. I didn't know it was based soley on race. Damnit!

----------


## dragonoverlord

> Damn. Here I thought it was my duty as an American to kill anyone who talks different than me. I didn't know it was based soley on race. Damnit!



You're supposed to kill not think.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> You're supposed to kill not think.



Not really. My job is combat/stealthy intelligence gathering. We are the eyes and ears of the commander. Well, actually, my unit is a counter guerilla tactics combat unit. 

You were thinking of the infantry :tongue2:

----------


## dragonoverlord

> You were thinking of the infantry



Dam..I always get those two mixed up.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Dam..I always get those two mixed up.



What? The words "dam" and "damn"?

----------


## dragonoverlord

Among Other things...

----------


## Dreamworld

> How are you going to defeat them. With stronger terrorism? How is love weak or bad......It's better than terrorism. If it's not love, then it's terrorism isn't it.



 Stop putting human emotion into war. In war to end corruption, there is only numbers. Who many less would suffer and die if we engage in war, and how much more would suffer and die if we don't.

Do you think we ended WWII with "love"? How many more millions would have died if we "loved" the axis powers?

UM, i did a lot of research, and you mostly right.. but I still think the war could have been better executed, and the American people could have been given better information.

----------


## ClouD

War is conflict from division ~ expression

----------


## Sagea

War is simply the extension of politics by other means.
-Clausewitz

----------


## ClouD

> War is simply the extension of politics by other means.
> -Clausewitz



Politics is simply the extension of expression.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Damn! Brought back from the grave. You caint stop a zombie thread.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

Half/Dreaming this doesn't make the Iraq war any more valid just cause you updated an old thread where someone didn't realize it was damaging.

Trying to go back to the past. lol.

Can't bring the dead Americans and Iraq children and women back.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Isn't it past your bedtime?

Please stop calling it a "war". It is a sad excuse for us to be heavily armed policemen. Most the soldiers I work with say they never fired a single bullet the last time they went to the sandbox. THAT is not war.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

> Please stop calling it a "war"



 ::laughtillhurts:: 

Ok a party then. The party was deadly and resulted in many thousands of innocent deaths for no reason. A bad immoral party in Iraq that no-one wanted without ballons. A party that had no plan and initiated by fabricated lies and no cheesecake.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

i forgive thee, civilian, who havith less classified information thay me.

----------


## Minervas Phoenix

I forgive you for keeping things secret from everyone else and joining a corporate sponsored military that hates our freedom. Look at your skull and death sign and what it says about you.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I forgive you for keeping things secret from everyone else and joining a corporate sponsored military that hates our freedom. Look at your skull and death sign and what it says about you.




In what ways are you not free? Seriously, name them, because I know we are not the most free people on the planet.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I forgive you for keeping things secret from everyone else and joining a corporate sponsored military that hates our freedom. Look at your skull and death sign and what it says about you.



It is interesting how the people who are the loudest about voting and women's rights and opposing fascism in the U.S. don't give a happy darn (infraction system in effect) about those things when it comes to people in other countries, even when advancing those other countries would lead to more stability for the entire world in the long run.





> i forgive thee, civilian, who havith less classified information thay me.



Knowing what you now know, how much more obvious is it to you that I have been right this whole time?

----------


## Sagea

> I forgive you for keeping things secret from everyone else and joining a corporate sponsored military that hates our freedom. Look at your skull and death sign and what it says about you.



Did that hurt when you pulled it outta your ass?

Also, what kinda fairy tale world do you think we live in? Do I think this country is a perfect, shining example of the freeest and most fair nation ever? No. But it certainly is by far at least one of the closest, if not the.

----------


## DeathCell

If Iraq wanted freedom from oppression they should fight for it themselves like the majority of the free world.

No one came into America and said we shall free you from the binds of English tyranny, but first we must occupy you for a few years..

----------


## Universal Mind

> If Iraq wanted freedom from oppression they should fight for it themselves like the majority of the free world.
> 
> No one came into America and said we shall free you from the binds of English tyranny, but first we must occupy you for a few years..



The English monarchy was nowhere near the horrible and controlling level of the Hussein regime, and our own interests in a free Iraq were way too important to wait forever for the Iraqis to overthrow the regime.  They would have never been able to do it, and we need an advanced and civilized Middle East as soon as possible, along with all of the other things the war is about creating.

----------


## ninja9578

> It is interesting how the people who are the loudest about voting and women's rights and opposing fascism in the U.S. don't give a happy darn (infraction system in effect) about those things when it comes to people in other countries, even when advancing those other countries would lead to more stability for the entire world in the long run.



I find it interesting how the people who are loudest about loving america don't give a damn about the fact that spending 9 billion tax dollars a month in Iraq that comes directly out of the already failing economy.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Knowing what you now know, how much more obvious is it to you that I have been right this whole time?



I haven't been around for the majority of this thread, and am way too lazy to read the whole thing.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I forgive you for keeping things secret from everyone else and joining a corporate sponsored military that hates our freedom. Look at your skull and death sign and what it says about you.



And its not a death sign. The cross sabers and stetson worn by the scull are symbols of cavalry units in our army. The scull is just there because it looks cool.

----------


## ninja9578

Half/Dreaming, being in the military doesn't give you the clairvoyance that you think that it does.  You get fed the progress through a strict military filter.  I live in a little redneck town and had some friends who came back from Iraq for a while and hadn't even heard of the war crimes of Guantonimo Bay.  You have to learn to be skeptical of everything that you are told by your superiors, don't take anything at face value, do some followthrough.  I'm sure that you think that I take the word of the liberal media at face value too, but I don't.  If I find something that sounds fishy I look into it, I know that Tom Brokaw and Michael Moore make mistakes and have agendas too.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I find it interesting how the people who are loudest about loving america don't give a damn about the fact that spending 9 billion tax dollars a month in Iraq that comes directly out of the already failing economy.



I give a major damn gosh dang, but I think it is worth it.  I totally agree with you that war sucks.  It is just that sometimes the consequences of not having a war are far worse. 

Do you see anything, I mean ANYTHING, positive about the fact that Iraq now has rights it did not previously have and AT LEAST now has hope of having a future of freedom and a far better situation of rights than they once had? Are you a spec glad that they can vote for their own government representatives now?  Are you glad that women in Afghanistan are going to have a government that treats them like real humans or that they have some kind of shot at a good future now?   Please answer those questions directly.  





> I haven't been around for the majority of this thread, and am way too lazy to read the whole thing.



But you remember my opinions, don't you?  You and I talked about this stuff a ton a while back.

----------


## Black_Eagle

> I give a major damn gosh dang, but I think it is worth it.  I totally agree with you that war sucks.  It is just that sometimes the consequences of not having a war are far worse. 
> 
> Do you see anything, I mean ANYTHING, positive about the fact that Iraq now has rights it did not previously have and AT LEAST now has hope of having a future of freedom and a far better situation of rights than they once had? Are you a spec glad that they can vote for their own government representatives now?  Are you glad that women in Afghanistan are going to have a government that treats them like real humans or that they have some kind of shot at a good future now?   Please answer those questions directly.  
> 
> 
> 
> But you remember my opinions, don't you?  You and I talked about this stuff a ton a while back.



I think the reasons we initially went to war were total bullshit. Any justification I've heard of Bush's decisions for initially waging war against Iraq completely and totally fail. Hopefully, since we've now been in this war for a good 5-6 years, hopefully it will have the effect you're describing...and not the opposite one.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Hopefully, since we've now been in this war for a good 5-6 years, hopefully it will have the effect you're describing...and not the opposite one.



We can definitely agree on that.  I'm glad to see you feel that way.  Most people who are against the war never say anything like that.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Half/Dreaming, being in the military doesn't give you the clairvoyance that you think that it does.  You get fed the progress through a strict military filter.  I live in a little redneck town and had some friends who came back from Iraq for a while and hadn't even heard of the war crimes of Guantonimo Bay.  You have to learn to be skeptical of everything that you are told by your superiors, don't take anything at face value, do some followthrough.  I'm sure that you think that I take the word of the liberal media at face value too, but I don't.  If I find something that sounds fishy I look into it, I know that Tom Brokaw and Michael Moore make mistakes and have agendas too.



Clairvoyance? Absolutely not. I haven't been there yet. Strict milirary filter? ABSOLUTELY not. The armed forces isn't what it used to be. Plus, more than half the info I know is from people I work with 5 days a week who have been several times. Trust me, what we do now is not war. Its more like drive around for a year, interact with the civilians, and occasionally get blown up or get shot at by a sniper. It's very much like gang warfare, and we are the cops. Actually thats a very good metaphor. 

Yea, UM I remember your stances on this subject despite the amount of brains cells I've lost since then. Its the reason I have always sided with you.

----------


## ninja9578

So the plummeting economy is funding a war that is supposedly about terrorists when really you're driving around doing what the Iraqi police force is supposed to be doing while Taliban is as strong as it was in 2001 because we have a tenth of the forces in Afghanistan where the real terrorists are?

The military has certainly changed, it's gotten sneakier, portraying soldier life as fun and rewarding on television.  Preying on the easily brainwashed bottom 10&#37; of the high school class, who were too poor or too dumb to get into a real college.  They go out thinking that they'll return as heros with bright futures, but actually come home to jeers from the 90% of America that hates the war and shell shock.  They may go to college, funded by the military; but the military had given them no intellectual skills and most will drop out and joined the proletariate wondering if it was all worth it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The military has certainly changed, it's gotten sneakier, portraying soldier life as fun and rewarding on television.  Preying on the easily brainwashed bottom 10% of the high school class, who were too poor or too dumb to get into a real college.  They go out thinking that they'll return as heros with bright futures, but actually come home to jeers from the 90% of America that hates the war and shell shock.  They may go to college, funded by the military; but the military had given them no intellectual skills and most will drop out and joined the proletariate wondering if it was all worth it.



I was an honors student and I went to the University of Alabama off scholarships. Same for a shit load of soldiers.

Ha! I would like nothing more than us "bottom 10 percent" not join the military and see your ass get sent into a warzone due to lack of soldiers. You should not insult the pawns. 

But wait. We don't need a military, right?

----------


## ninja9578

We don't need a military that goes to countries that had nothing to do with an attack on our sovereignty while a country a few hundred miles away orchestrated the entire thing.  Yes, we're in Afghanistan fighting the terrorists, but our occupation of Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda to rally more support for its cause and grow to power it hadn't seen in years.  If this whole thing was to fight terrorists, lets send the military after terrorists.  

Some of the proponents of the war say that we are luring the terrorists into Iraq with our presence there.  What's really happening is the masterminds and the people who fund the organizations are safe in Afghani and Pakistani mountains sending replaceable pawns to bomb US checkpoints.

A runaway military budget like we have now destabilizes the economy because the military money comes directly out of it in the form of taxes.  Every major military in history has succumb to economic collapse from Rome to The Soviet Union.

If you are a college educated person, then why are you in the military?  I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating the facts, the majority of the soldiers are not college educated.  The higher you go up the education chain, the less you see in the military.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> We don't need a military that goes to countries that had nothing to do with an attack on our sovereignty while a country a few hundred miles away orchestrated the entire thing.  Yes, we're in Afghanistan fighting the terrorists, but our occupation of Iraq has allowed Al Qaeda to rally more support for its cause and grow to power it hadn't seen in years.  If this whole thing was to fight terrorists, lets send the military after terrorists.  
> 
> Some of the proponents of the war say that we are luring the terrorists into Iraq with our presence there.  What's really happening is the masterminds and the people who fund the organizations are safe in Afghani and Pakistani mountains sending replaceable pawns to bomb US checkpoints.
> 
> A runaway military budget like we have now destabilizes the economy because the military money comes directly out of it in the form of taxes.  Every major military in history has succumb to economic collapse from Rome to The Soviet Union.
> 
> If you are a college educated person, then why are you in the military?  I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just stating the facts, the majority of the soldiers are not college educated.  The higher you go up the education chain, the less you see in the military.



Fair enough. Honeslty, I joined up becuase because I was bored with stale life, addicted to a wrong lifestyle, and I needed a kick in the ass. And to be even more honest, basic training was all I need. I have a bad taste in my mouth for the real army and anything it has to offer. Way too many people are too into it. Those are the people you described earlier who have nothing to look forward beyond the military, besides a trailer and a factory job.

----------


## DeathCell

> The English monarchy was nowhere near the horrible and controlling level of the Hussein regime, and our own interests in a free Iraq were way too important to wait forever for the Iraqis to overthrow the regime.  They would have never been able to do it, and we need an advanced and civilized Middle East as soon as possible, along with all of the other things the war is about creating.



No matter our interests, we never have a right to stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Nuclear threat was the only reason, and it was nothing but a lie.

Walking into the Middle east, where war and hate has raged for ages and expecting everything to be fixed cause the Americans are their was foolhardy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No matter our interests, we never have a right to stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Nuclear threat was the only reason, and it was nothing but a lie.



No, the reasons go way, way beyond that.  The WMD's were not supposed to be nuclear.  They were supposed to be sarin gas, anthrax, and other things.  The nuclear threat involved what the regime was working on.  The WMD intelligence was not a "lie".  It may have been wrong (We don't know.), but the intelligence came from a lot of major bodies, most of which were not American.  





> Walking into the Middle east, where war and hate has raged for ages and expecting everything to be fixed cause the Americans are their was foolhardy.



We will see about that in time.  I think and hope you are wrong.

----------


## DeathCell

> No, the reasons go way, way beyond that.  The WMD's were not supposed to be nuclear.  They were supposed to be sarin gas, anthrax, and other things.  The nuclear threat involved what the regime was working on.  The WMD intelligence was not a "lie".  It may have been wrong (We don't know.), but the intelligence came from a lot of major bodies, most of which were not American.  
> 
> 
> 
> We will see about that in time.  I think and hope you are wrong.



No WMDs were found. That's all I have to say. They found some canisters, or something that's about it. The US government, and the Bush team took it and ran with it.

Someday maybe peace can be brought to the Middle East, but only when they are ready to accept themselves and other cultures. Invasion never helps.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Someday maybe peace can be brought to the Middle East, but only when they are ready to accept themselves and other cultures. Invasion never helps.



Thats why I don't believe it will ever stop. I don't think there is a single way to fix the conflicts over there. There is simply too much breeded racism, prejudice and ignorance. But you still have to try.

----------


## ninja9578

You do realize that the more that we bomb them, the more they hate us, right?

----------


## Universal Mind

> You do realize that the more that we bomb them, the more they hate us, right?



And the more dead terrorist minded people there are, and the more the new democracy can be preserved so advancement can cause the constant reproduction of backward ass neanderthalls to slow way down.  

I have a challenge for you.  Say some good things about the war.  Say the most positive things you can say.  You are all big on human rights and ant-big-brother when it comes to Americans.  If you have any of that for Iraqis too, I know you can find some positive things to say.

----------


## DeathCell

> And the more dead terrorist minded people there are, and the more the new democracy can be preserved so advancement can cause the constant reproduction of backward ass neanderthalls to slow way down.  
> 
> I have a challenge for you.  Say some good things about the war.  Say the most positive things you can say.  You are all big on human rights and ant-big-brother when it comes to Americans.  If you have any of that for Iraqis too, I know you can find some positive things to say.



And the more innocent people are killed thus pissing off the family members that survived. Then converting them into angry mad men easily swayed by terrorist organizations.

----------


## Universal Mind

> And the more innocent people are killed thus pissing off the family members that survived. Then converting them into angry mad men easily swayed by terrorist organizations.



Everybody knows that war has its terrible aspects, but we are killing loads and loads of people who have it in them at all to become terrorists.  Being a terrorist is not rational, period.  They have the mentality parallel to, "Grrrrr, me mad, so me tear up things and blow up babies and mommies."  The more dumb asses like that we can kill and prevent from reproducing, the better.  If the war brings that side out of the dumb asses, then that's good in a way because we get to pop them off by the zillions.

----------


## ninja9578

> And the more dead terrorist minded people there are, and the more the new democracy can be preserved so advancement can cause the constant reproduction of backward ass neanderthalls to slow way down.  
> 
> I have a challenge for you.  Say some good things about the war.  Say the most positive things you can say.  You are all big on human rights and ant-big-brother when it comes to Americans.  If you have any of that for Iraqis too, I know you can find some positive things to say.



But the more we bomb them the more sympathy the terrorist movement gets and for every terrorist we kill they get two more because the people are pissed off at our occupation.

We aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we're sitting there and letting the terrorists send pawns to bomb us, some we catch, some we don't.  The terrorist masterminds are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

----------


## Universal Mind

> But the more we bomb them the more sympathy the terrorist movement gets and for every terrorist we kill they get two more because the people are pissed off at our occupation.



The lessening of the violence shows otherwise.  





> We aren't fighting terrorists in Iraq, we're sitting there and letting the terrorists send pawns to bomb us, some we catch, some we don't. The terrorist masterminds are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.



The pawns are terrorists, and we are attracting terrorists from all of those countries while capturing and killing leaders.  

Are you going to take me up on my challenge?

----------


## ninja9578

> The lessening of the violence shows otherwise.



Lessening violence where?  In Iraq?  Iraq had very little violence (compared to the rest of the region) until the American invasion.  What about the rest of the region where violence has surged in the past few years?  Trying to put out a fire with gasoline is not a good idea.





> The pawns are terrorists, and we are attracting terrorists from all of those countries while capturing and killing leaders.  
> 
> Are you going to take me up on my challenge?



You're using Americans as bait.  As much as I support Eugenics, that's not the way to do it.  We are not attracting their leaders in, the leaders and financial backers are safe and sound in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.  If we are doing such a good job, why does Al Qaeda have as much support now as they did in 2001 according to the UN?  Do you think that the amount of terrorists that trickle into Iraq to attack the US is greater than the influx of supporters that they get because the people feel threatened by an American oppression?

You keep saying part of the war is about liberating the women and minorities of Iraq.  You'll understand if the liberals have a hard time believing that considering that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of every single civil rights argument in the past century.

What challenge was that?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Lessening violence where? In Iraq? Iraq had very little violence (compared to the rest of the region) until the American invasion. What about the rest of the region where violence has surged in the past few years? Trying to put out a fire with gasoline is not a good idea.



The violence has gone way down since the invasion, which goes counter to your point that the terrorists are multiplying faster than we are capturing and killing them.  

Before the invasion, the Hussein regime was in charge, and I know you know about the mass graves and the genocidal tactics that were used to control the population so oppressively.  





> You're using Americans as bait. As much as I support Eugenics, that's not the way to do it. We are not attracting their leaders in, the leaders and financial backers are safe and sound in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. If we are doing such a good job, why does Al Qaeda have as much support now as they did in 2001 according to the UN? Do you think that the amount of terrorists that trickle into Iraq to attack the US is greater than the influx of supporters that they get because the people feel threatened by an American oppression?



Yes, as shown by how the influx of terrorists into Iraq to fight us has been diminishing.  

I did not say we were attracting the leaders.  I said we are capturing and killing them.  Our terrorist magnet is not our only means of getting terrorists.  It is just one of them.  





> You keep saying part of the war is about liberating the women and minorities of Iraq. You'll understand if the liberals have a hard time believing that considering that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of every single civil rights argument in the past century.



We can debate the intentions of Republicans another time, and they are wrong on a lot of issues, but the fact is that Iraqis now have rights they did not have before, and liberals generally have not one spec of anything good to say about it, which makes me question the real feelings and intentions of liberals. 

Don't forget that Democrats supported and voted for the war too.  





> What challenge was that?



This one...





> I have a challenge for you. Say some good things about the war. Say the most positive things you can say. You are all big on human rights and anti-big-brother when it comes to Americans. If you have any of that for Iraqis too, I know you can find some positive things to say.

----------


## ninja9578

There is just as much terrorist activities as ever, just less towards Americans because Americans have largely been taken out of harms way.  Put them in Afghanistan and see what happens.  People there hate Americans just as much as ever and I can give a good example.  We all heard about the Pakistani terrorist organization that attacked India right?  Pakistanis hate Indians, but the primary target of the attack were American tourists.  They hate us more than they hate the Indians now.

Another reason there is a recent drop off of terrorist attacks is the simple fact that the terrorists are primarily muslim and we are in Ramadan.

The best thing about the war is that is has exposed the utter incompetence and criminal activity that is The George Bush administration.  I never said anything bad about the civil rights advances in Iraq, I said that they were gotten in the wrong way.

"The world has always been influenced by the power of our example, not the example of our power." - Bill Clinton

----------


## Universal Mind

> There is just as much terrorist activities as ever



Not in Iraq, where you said we are creating terrorists faster than we can take them down.  





> Another reason there is a recent drop off of terrorist attacks is the simple fact that the terrorists are primarily muslim and we are in Ramadan.



The violence has been way down for a very long time.  





> I never said anything bad about the civil rights advances in Iraq, I said that they were gotten in the wrong way.



They are there when they would not have been otherwise.  Is that good news?

----------


## ninja9578

> Not in Iraq, where you said we are creating terrorists faster than we can take them down.



I never said that.  Al Qaeda is the biggest group, they were never in Iraq.  We are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them, but they are in Afghanistan.





> They are there when they would not have been otherwise.  Is that good news?



I never said that it wasn't.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I never said that. Al Qaeda is the biggest group, they were never in Iraq. We are creating terrorists faster than we can kill them, but they are in Afghanistan.



Al Qaeda is all over Iraq, and we have gotten a much better hold on them and their power.  Their increased weakness in Iraq is proof of their increased weakness.  





> I never said that it wasn't.



But do you say that it IS?????

----------


## Half/Dreaming

This topic is so beyond any of us, in my opinion. I mean really, do any of us know what is best for the entire world? Seriously

----------


## ninja9578

In the words of Lennon: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."

----------


## drewmandan

> This topic is so beyond any of us, in my opinion. I mean really, do any of us know what is best for the entire world? Seriously



Says the guy who supports the war in Iraq.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Says the guy who supports the war in Iraq.



I have to find some good in what I do for a living. I wouldnt be going to a warzone if I didn't believe in it somewhat.

All I'm saying is that I could be wrong. You should feel the same way.

----------


## Universal Mind

> In the words of Lennon: "All we are saying, is give peace a chance."



That's the idea.

I guess you are not going to answer the question you keep dodging?

----------


## Sagea

> So the plummeting economy is funding a war that is supposedly about terrorists when really you're driving around doing what the Iraqi police force is supposed to be doing while Taliban is as strong as it was in 2001 because we have a tenth of the forces in Afghanistan where the real terrorists are?
> 
> The military has certainly changed, it's gotten sneakier, portraying soldier life as fun and rewarding on television.  Preying on the easily brainwashed bottom 10% of the high school class, who were too poor or too dumb to get into a real college.  They go out thinking that they'll return as heros with bright futures, but actually come home to jeers from the 90% of America that hates the war and shell shock.  They may go to college, funded by the military; but the military had given them no intellectual skills and most will drop out and joined the proletariate wondering if it was all worth it.



Are you fucking kidding me???
That right there just completley annhilates your credibility. That whole last paragraph is just cock and bull. Obviously you don't know many soldiers.

Oh, and the whole "the more we bomb them, the more they hate us" thing is true. That's why conventional soldiers should never have been sent to do an unconventional job. It needs to be left to the only unit actually purpose driven to accomplish unconventional warfare: Army Special Forces.

----------


## drewmandan

I agree with Sagea. If Hussein had to be ousted, doing it by destroying the country was the absolute worst way from a tactical, honorable, and political standpoint.

----------


## ninja9578

> Are you fucking kidding me???
> That right there just completley annhilates your credibility. That whole last paragraph is just cock and bull. Obviously you don't know many soldiers.



How so, the military do tell them that they'll be treated as heros.  I believe that they say "with the respect of millions" in their commercials.  When, in fact, they are shunned and spit on.  (We don't literally spit on them.)

I said it was primarily those who couldn't get into college.  I know one person whose currently in the military that went to college.

Their commercial says that CEOs and software engineers came out of the military, and yes, maybe one or two, but most will end up doing blue collar work their whole lives because the military gave them no intellectual skills so even if they go to college when they are done, they can't handle it.



And UM, what question is that?  I already said something positive, it showed the Bush incompetence to the world and I said that the human rights advances are good, but that the ends don't justify the means.  You asked another question?

I have a question for you.  Do you believe it is better to act as the world's police with our military by spending 9 billion a month, or to spend some of that money on the underfunded American police force and maybe take out some of gang control from city slums?

And can't we teach the Iraqi media how to throw?  He missed Bush with both shoes?  Seriously?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Actually the Army teaches us that we will be despised by millions for what we do. We understand that what we do is a boring and thankless job. But we still do it, before the sun rises and after the sun sets. Its part of what keeps us going.

----------


## Xaqaria

> And can't we teach the Iraqi media how to throw?  He missed Bush with both shoes?  Seriously?



Bush has actually become quite good at dodging during his eight year tenure as president.

----------


## Universal Mind

> And UM, what question is that?



 ::roll:: 





> I have a question for you. Do you believe it is better to act as the world's police with our military by spending 9 billion a month, or to spend some of that money on the underfunded American police force and maybe take out some of gang control from city slums?



Hmmm, the fight to stabilize the Middle East in the long run to greatly downgrade the future threat of nuclear terrorism, or give extra money to some town's police force?  I'll go with the former.  





> And can't we teach the Iraqi media how to throw? He missed Bush with both shoes? Seriously?



That's not a very nonviolent stance.

----------


## DeathCell

> Everybody knows that war has its terrible aspects, but we are killing loads and loads of people who have it in them at all to become terrorists.  Being a terrorist is not rational, period.  They have the mentality parallel to, "Grrrrr, me mad, so me tear up things and blow up babies and mommies."  The more dumb asses like that we can kill and prevent from reproducing, the better.  If the war brings that side out of the dumb asses, then that's good in a way because we get to pop them off by the zillions.



War brings out the worst in all people.

----------


## Sagea

> How so, the military do tell them that they'll be treated as heros.  I believe that they say "with the respect of millions" in their commercials.  When, in fact, they are shunned and spit on.  (We don't literally spit on them.)
> 
> I said it was primarily those who couldn't get into college.  I know one person whose currently in the military that went to college.
> 
> Their commercial says that CEOs and software engineers came out of the military, and yes, maybe one or two, but most will end up doing blue collar work their whole lives because the military gave them no intellectual skills so even if they go to college when they are done, they can't handle it.



Who are "we"?
Because I do not know very many people who "shun and spit on" the troops.
I know a lot of people who don't agree with what we're doing, but all of them love the troops.
I know a lot of people who went into college and got a good education after and while they were in the military.
Hell I know a lot of peole who are only joining the military for the education.
At the Sergeant Major's Academy they practically FORCED the SGMs to take college courses other than what they were doing at the Academy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> War brings out the worst in all people.



National freedom has never been won without it.  Do you value freedom?

----------


## drewmandan

> National freedom has never been won without it.  Do you value freedom?



Package deal fallacy. Let's keep it rational, shall we?

----------


## ninja9578

> Actually the Army teaches us that we will be despised by millions for what we do. We understand that what we do is a boring and thankless job. But we still do it, before the sun rises and after the sun sets. Its part of what keeps us going.



Then all the luck to you, I couldn't do that.





> Hmmm, the fight to stabilize the Middle East in the long run to greatly downgrade the future threat of nuclear terrorism, or give extra money to some town's police force?  I'll go with the former.



Iraq never had nuclear capabilities, you're thinking of Iran.  The middle east will never be stable as long as religion is prevalent in the world.  No amount of machine guns or bombs will change that.





> That's not a very nonviolent stance.



Striking someone with a shoe in Muslim culture is a sign of upmost detest.  It's similar to literally spitting on someone here in the US, it's not a violence thing.





> War brings out the worst in all people.



No, it's the worst in people that brings out war.





> Who are "we"?
> Because I do not know very many people who "shun and spit on" the troops.
> I know a lot of people who don't agree with what we're doing, but all of them love the troops.
> I know a lot of people who went into college and got a good education after and while they were in the military.
> Hell I know a lot of peole who are only joining the military for the education.
> At the Sergeant Major's Academy they practically FORCED the SGMs to take college courses other than what they were doing at the Academy.



"We" are civilized society.  Most of us give soldiers the same respect that we give garbage men.  We thank them for doing their job, knowing that we couldn't live without them, but exclude them from our social events because they don't fit in.  Most of the soldiers that I know lack intellect, education, and class.

No one needs to join the military to go to college.  If you're too poor to afford college you can get scholarships.  It's not hard if you're poor, you just have to have a decent GPA in college.  I had a 3.1 when I graduated and I senior year I barely even went to class, let alone did work.  If I'd been poor I would have had no trouble getting a scholarship (like my brothers girlfriend did with very similar grades / SATs)

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Who are "we"?
> Because I do not know very many people who "shun and spit on" the troops.
> I know a lot of people who don't agree with what we're doing, but all of them love the troops.
> I know a lot of people who went into college and got a good education after and while they were in the military.
> Hell I know a lot of peole who are only joining the military for the education.
> At the Sergeant Major's Academy they practically FORCED the SGMs to take college courses other than what they were doing at the Academy.



I had a friend who left Marion a few years back. You might know him.

Btw ninja, I love the garbage man thing you say. You shouldn't thank us in that way. Thank us for risking getting blown to little tiny pieces on the side of a sandy street thousands and thousands of miles from the people we love.

----------


## drewmandan

> Btw ninja, I love the garbage man thing you say. You shouldn't thank us in that way. Thank us for risking getting blown to little tiny pieces on the side of a sandy street thousands and thousands of miles from the people we love.



You get to murder people. Let's call it even.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Package deal fallacy. Let's keep it rational, shall we?



Superstrong inductive reasoning with extremely limited possibility of involving mere correlation, thus supremely weak factor of mere package deal assumption.  You grasped at a very weak straw.  

No other route to freedom has ever worked, and war in pursuit of freedom has been tried and tested over and over, with success.  Has it not?  Do you have a landmark breakthrough alternative suggestion?  Let's avoid being pseudo-intellectual, shall we?  





> Iraq never had nuclear capabilities, you're thinking of Iran. The middle east will never be stable as long as religion is prevalent in the world. No amount of machine guns or bombs will change that.



You completely missed my point.  Did you do it on purpose?  





> Striking someone with a shoe in Muslim culture is a sign of upmost detest. It's similar to literally spitting on someone here in the US, it's not a violence thing.



It is hostile physical force that causes pain.  It can cause bloody noses and mess up eyes.  That is violence.  It would be considered assault/battery here, as it should be.

----------


## drewmandan

> Superstrong inductive reasoning with extremely limited possibility of involving mere correlation, thus supremely weak factor of mere package deal assumption.  You grasped at a very weak straw.



I've been trying to think of an example, although it occurs to me that the onus is on you to prove that increasing freedom requires violence. But I won't make a huge deal out of this, because it's certainly true in most cases. In fact, if we go by the exact wording of what you said, I tend to agree. But I don't agree that it can be used to justify the Iraq war because freedom hasn't been increased; it was simply American imperial expansion.

----------


## ninja9578

> No other route to freedom has ever worked, and war in pursuit of freedom has been tried and tested over and over, with success.  Has it not?  Do you have a landmark breakthrough alternative suggestion?  Let's avoid being pseudo-intellectual, shall we?



Uh, you've never heard of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?





> You completely missed my point.  Did you do it on purpose?



No, I was simply pointing out that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with nuclear stability in the middle east.  If anything, our occupation of Iraq has caused the other countries to accelerate their nuclear programs to defend themselves from the oppressive US military. 





> It is hostile physical force that causes pain.  It can cause bloody noses and mess up eyes.  That is violence.  It would be considered assault/battery here, as it should be.



To them Bush is the equivalent of Hitler; a shoe is nothing compared to what they would do to him.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> To them Bush is the equivalent of Hitler.



Thats a bold statement.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Uh, you've never heard of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?



Ghandi used violence to liberate India.  He even sent his men into battle.  He just told them to get their asses kicked on purpose. 

MLK did not liberate a nation.  He just used his powerful influence to increase the rights of a racial minority in a nation.  

My point is that it takes war to liberate a nation, at least so far in history, with maybe a few exceptions.  I tried to think of other ways, and the ones I have come up with so far are the slow evolution of a backward ass government, as with old monarchies, and the very remote chance that a dictator will be benevolent and give his country a ton of freedom.  Has that happened yet?  I guess in theory it could, but I wouldn't count on it.  If there is another way, please tell me about it.  It would be great.  A whole lot about war really sucks.





> No, I was simply pointing out that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with nuclear stability in the middle east. If anything, our occupation of Iraq has caused the other countries to accelerate their nuclear programs to defend themselves from the oppressive US military.



We removed two governments that really wanted to do that, and scared others out of trying.  Libbya even came forward and publicly gave up their WMD program.  

But my point was that pulling the Middle East out of the dark ages through social advancement will be great in the long run.  It is archaic ignorance and stupidity that are the real problem over there.

----------


## drewmandan

> But my point was that pulling the Middle East out of the dark ages through social advancement will be great in the long run.  It is archaic ignorance and stupidity that are the real problem over there.



And how does annexing the heartland of Islam to form a purely Jewish nation and supplying the Jews with modern arms and nuclear weapons fit into the scheme of bringing peace to the middle east?

----------


## Universal Mind

> And how does annexing the heartland of Islam to form a purely Jewish nation and supplying the Jews with modern arms and nuclear weapons fit into the scheme of bringing peace to the middle east?



Israel is not purely Jewish.  Peaceful Muslims and people of other religions are allowed to live there.  I have a Christian relative who lives there.  But Israel is a democracy... that needs to be protected against the cuckoo burgers that live around it.

There is definitely Jewish bias in the law in Israel, and I am against that.  I support 100&#37; separation of church and state.

----------


## drewmandan

> Israel is not purely Jewish.  Peaceful Muslims and people of other religions are allowed to live there.  I have a Christian relative who lives there.  But Israel is a democracy... that needs to be protected against the cuckoo burgers that live around it.
> 
> There is definitely Jewish bias in the law in Israel, and I am against that.  I support 100% separation of church and state.



So you don't think *Israel* is a Jewish country?

----------


## Universal Mind

> So you don't think *Israel* is a Jewish country?



Be more specific.  Most of the people who live there are Jews, but it is definitely not "purely Jewish", as you said.  It is also not a Jewish theocracy.  What exactly are you asking?

----------


## drewmandan

> Be more specific.  Most of the people who live there are Jews, but it is definitely not "purely Jewish", as you said.  It is also not a Jewish theocracy.  What exactly are you asking?



I'm asking how annexing territory from the Muslims and giving it to a well-armed group of Jews is supposed to bring peace to the middle east.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm asking how annexing territory from the Muslims and giving it to a well-armed group of Jews is supposed to bring peace to the middle east.



The 1948 U.N. move?  That was royally fucked up.  I don't support it at all.

----------


## drewmandan

> The 1948 U.N. move?  That was royally fucked up.  I don't support it at all.



You don't see the parallels with Iraq?

----------


## Universal Mind

> You don't see the parallels with Iraq?



No.  Forcing out the Hussein regime was completely legitimate, as was forcing the Nazis out of Europe.  Forcing civilians out of a region because of their religion is just ruthless religious discrimination.

----------


## drewmandan

I don't agree that the Allies fighting the Nazis was justified. Internal resistance forces would have overthrown them in the same basic span of time and without millions of innocent deaths.

----------


## Grod

> I don't agree that the Allies fighting the Nazis was justified. Internal resistance forces would have overthrown them in the same basic span of time and without millions of innocent deaths.



Are you serious? Remember the holocaust bro? 6 million *innocent deaths*. That is before they were stopped by the allies. How many more do you think they would have killed before the allies reached them?

----------


## drewmandan

> Are you serious? Remember the holocaust bro? 6 million *innocent deaths*. That is before they were stopped by the allies. How many more do you think they would have killed before the allies reached them?



About the same.

----------


## Universal Mind

> About the same.



How do you figure that?  And how would they have done it with fewer innocent deaths?

----------


## drewmandan

> How do you figure that?  And how would they have done it with fewer innocent deaths?



Most of the deaths during WW2 were from carpet bombing, an avenue not available and not needed by insurgents.

----------


## blue_space87

> Alright, this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
> This should please liberals enough to shut them up.
> 
> Iraq was an example. We chose them to show the world what happens when our country gets attacked. The terrorists meant to bring our counrty to our knees, when in fact they just sckrewed themselves. They brought destruction upon their organizations.
> 
> Now the part that libs wont like,
> 
> We have to make a point that when 3000 american civilians die, 30,000 enemy civilians must die. If we keep this campaign of total destruction, no middle eastern terrorist will ever attack again. He will know that it will bring death to his family and countrymen.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but you are fucking pathetic.  If what you call is patriotism, it's fucking bullshit; I don't understand much of politics or war, but I know the war on iraq is complete bullshit.

I'll assure you, sacrificing 30,000 for 3,000 is NOT FUCKING JUSTICE.

Death doesn't justify anything!

----------


## blue_space87

> That's called facism.  Lives are all the fucking same. You are not more important than any other life form, and being self important is not called patriotism. It's called being self righteous.



I agree, he seems to be pro-USA.

----------


## Dreamworld

> ...*I can't even Fathom how many generations of backwoods KKK imbreding it took to come up with this idea for foreign policy.  
> *
> ...btw you talk far worse then Usama bin Laden, he only wanted revenge on sept.11.  You want genocide if that's what it takes...and that is the stupidist thing I have ever read on this forum. ( I don't even think I have to realy explain why more then that?) ...and I spend the majority of my time in senseless banter.
> 
> btw i'm curious, how many american's do you think agree with his argument?



Haha I LOL'd so bad on this.

----------


## blue_space87

> haaaaaaaaaaaaa, HAAAAAAAAAAA, HAAAAAAAAAAAA
> I was just playin about the killing of 30,000 people
> 
> and yea, im from Gerogia. But the kkk sucks ass. But i am imbred  
> 
> EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD AGREE. 
> otherwise, you can just geeeeeet out.



You're pathetic.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> You're pathetic.



Check up on the guy who started this thread. He's banned. You're talking to nobody.

----------


## blue_space87

> Check up on the guy who started this thread. He's banned. You're talking to nobody.



It doesn't say he's banned beneath his avatar or user details  :Confused:

----------


## shrimpster

> It doesn't say he's banned beneath his avatar or user details



I don't think he is banned but he hasn't logged in for over 2 years and with that in mind he probably hasn't been around *much* since then either..

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't understand much of politics or war, but I know the war on iraq is complete bullshit.



No you don't.  





> I'll assure you, sacrificing 30,000 for 3,000 is NOT FUCKING JUSTICE.



You definitely don't understand the point of the war.  If you want to understand it, this thread is full of facts and of view points of both sides of the argument.

----------


## blue_space87

> No you don't.  
> 
> 
> 
> You definitely don't understand the point of the war.  If you want to understand it, this thread is full of facts and of view points of both sides of the argument.



I'll agree that this thread consists of many facts and perspectives of war and politics, mostly spread throughout 20-or so pages.  However, I still disagree on the loss of 30,000, same as to millions and so forth; I disagree on the excessive loss of life.

----------


## DeathCell

> No.  Forcing out the Hussein regime was completely legitimate, as was forcing the Nazis out of Europe.  Forcing civilians out of a region because of their religion is just ruthless religious discrimination.



Nazis were killing by the millions and constantly expanding, hussein caused problems once and awhile with other neighboring countries.. Nothing compared to Hitler and his Nazis...

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'll agree that this thread consists of many facts and perspectives of war and politics, mostly spread throughout 20-or so pages. However, I still disagree on the loss of 30,000, same as to millions and so forth; I disagree on the excessive loss of life.



Loss of innocent life is always awful, but we are trying to prevent something worse than awful.





> Nazis were killing by the millions and constantly expanding, hussein caused problems once and awhile with other neighboring countries.. Nothing compared to Hitler and his Nazis...



They were both genocidal terrorists, and they both had to go, but for not entirely the same list of reasons.

----------


## SpecialInterests

If you're dumb enough to join the army and willingly go to iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere where you are going to get shot at, you deserve to die. I don't give a shit about the soldiers that die over in Iraq. All it is for me is entertainement. Want to know my favourite things to see on CNN? Suicide bombings and bodies flying 100 feet with missing limbs. GOOD. 

You're dumb enough to put your life on the line so that exxonmobil, general electric, general motors, JPMorgan, world bank, IMF, etc can make a few extra billion in profits every year, you can die for all I care. Americans and american soldiers are brainwashed to think they are fighting for their country, when really they are fighting for the corporatocracy so they can make an extra buck and expand their empire.

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you're dumb enough to join the army and willingly go to iraq, afghanistan, or anywhere where you are going to get shot at, you deserve to die. I don't give a shit about the soldiers that die over in Iraq. All it is for me is entertainement. Want to know my favourite things to see on CNN? Suicide bombings and bodies flying 100 feet with missing limbs. GOOD. 
> 
> You're dumb enough to put your life on the line so that exxonmobil, general electric, general motors, JPMorgan, world bank, IMF, etc can make a few extra billion in profits every year, you can die for all I care. Americans and american soldiers are brainwashed to think they are fighting for their country, when really they are fighting for the corporatocracy so they can make an extra buck and expand their empire.



Oh nice, another troll.  How original.  But this one is from that enormous country the United States keeps protected.  

You have to be at least 15 to post here.

----------


## SpecialInterests

I'm just a realist. I would never support military functions. The only reason countries still wage war is because people are making money off it hand over fist. Guess what? The corporations that Americans are fighting and dieing for do not give a flying fuck about YOU or YOUR FAMILY. They DO NOT GIVE A FUCK. You want to know whats on their agenda? Profit. Money. If there's money in it, you bet your ass the corporations are going to jump at that opportunity.

Americans LOVE war. You guys COULDN'T STAND to not be fucking with some other country. It's all over the news, it's all in politics, all in schools, all over EVERYTHING. The American national anthem is the only anthem that mentions fucking bombs and rockets. When most people look at the American flag it reminds them of the people that FOUGHT in wars. You guys are brainwashed to LOVE war. You know why? So they can do it whenever they WANT. They do it to control all the important land, control all the important governments, and they do it to control all the important natural resources that your GREAT AMERICAN CORPORATIONS covet. You know the ones that you guys are so "proud" of? We are living in the first truly global empire. The American Empire. You guys wouldn't notice it though. The only people that can make a difference in the world are the people that are trained to ignore it all. Passive observers is what they want you to be, and thats what they are getting, because they are good at creating an ignorant society.

Yea - but you can call me a 12 year old troll .

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm just a realist. I would never support military functions. The only reason countries still wage war is because people are making money off it hand over fist. Guess what? The corporations that Americans are fighting and dieing for do not give a flying fuck about YOU or YOUR FAMILY. They DO NOT GIVE A FUCK. You want to know whats on their agenda? Profit. Money. If there's money in it, you bet your ass the corporations are going to jump at that opportunity.
> 
> Americans LOVE war. You guys COULDN'T STAND to not be fucking with some other country. It's all over the news, it's all in politics, all in schools, all over EVERYTHING. The American national anthem is the only anthem that mentions fucking bombs and rockets. When most people look at the American flag it reminds them of the people that FOUGHT in wars. You guys are brainwashed to LOVE war. You know why? So they can do it whenever they WANT. They do it to control all the important land, control all the important governments, and they do it to control all the important natural resources that your GREAT AMERICAN CORPORATIONS covet. You know the ones that you guys are so "proud" of? We are living in the first truly global empire. The American Empire. You guys wouldn't notice it though. The only people that can make a difference in the world are the people that are trained to ignore it all. Passive observers is what they want you to be, and thats what they are getting, because they are good at creating an ignorant society.
> 
> Yea - but you can call me a 12 year old troll .



I have a list of words you need to look up.

1. assertion
2. proof
3. generalization
4. assumption

While you are learning the definitions of those words, be coming up with an explanation for why no government would DARE invade Canada and try to take you over, despite your massive oil reserves.  If you give up, I will tell you the answer.

Also, explain why the U.S. has not taken over Canada.

----------


## DuB

SpecialInterests, 

If you are unable to make relevant and civil contributions to the discussion, then please do not participate. Consider this a warning.

Cheers,

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Also, explain why the U.S. has not taken over Canada.



"They do it to control all the important land, control all the important governments..."

Thats why.

Yep, new trolls are always fun. Perhaps we should get the old tag team back together?

SpecialInterests, even though I am..disturbed by what you said about me and my brothers, I respect your childish opinions and will always protect them. How's that for an answer? But seriously, if you don't calm down with that stuff I might have to give you a glass of warm milk and send you to bed.

----------


## drewmandan

> Also, explain why the U.S. has not taken over Canada.



Disclaimer: I didn't read the post you quoted and probably don't agree with it.

The US operates through economic imperialism rather than territorial. So, to answer the question, they did take Canada over a long time ago.

----------


## SpecialInterests

DuB. I feel that my post was probably the most relevant and contributing post made in this read. It outlines the real truth of how the American empire operates. Who is to say that my post wasn't relevant? I'm sure there is lots of informed people out there that would gladly stand up for what has been said in my post.

Universal Mind. I don't need to "prove" anything. It's all happening whether you want to believe it or not. The American empire expands and operates in a very subtle way. In such a way where the "civil" society isn't aware of it. So they can't dispute it. It's called economics. Canada is a puppet of the US. Canada was bought and paid for a long time ago. So to answer your question- a lot like drewmandan said - The US took Canada over a long time ago.
And you don't need to tell me why Canada hasn't been invaded for it's massive oil reserves yet. Do you know why they call them "reserves"? Do you think the US would let some other dinky country invade us and let them take all of our oil? LOL. United States wants that for themselves bud! I bet you didn't know that the US also has a HUGE reserve of oil. Guess what? They're saving that for when all the other countries have been sucked dry of oil before they tap into THEIR reserves. This includes Canada's. So they can have it all themselves, and sell it to any other countries that are willing to pay massively marked up prices for it.

@Half/dreaming: I am very sorry if you ACTUALLY think you're fighting for your country and countries sovereignty. Nah. The elitests are just using you and your brothers bodies to fight their dirty, greedy wars. Before you call my opinions childish next time, you should do your own research instead of DOING AND THINKING what your owners tell you to do and think. Maybe research and form your own opinions instead of letting your government instruct you what to think about the war.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I called you a child because you said I should fucking die. Dude you would get a smacking from hell if you ever said that to my face.

And what makes you think you know my opinions on this war or on America? Stop assuming things.

----------


## ninja9578

> Dude you would get a smacking from hell if you ever said that to my face.



I've helped train people in the army, your hand to hand skills aren't as good as you think they are.  :tongue2: 


Stephen Harper did not authorize an attempt on Bush's father, nor do they have easily accessible oil, the US will never invade Canada.  Canada is also a member of the UN, an invasion of Canada would bring the force of the UN down on the US.  As much as the south would like to think that the US military is invincible, it would be crushed by the full force of the UN.  How did Canada even get into this conversation?  I thought it was about the illegal war in Iraq?

----------


## StonedApe

> Also, explain why the U.S. has not taken over Canada.



White people live there and they don't have loads of oil. Also Canada helps the US as it is. In polotics if something is working for you, you generally don't fuck with it.

I do have to agree with drew about the already taking it over on some level though. A few years ago, parts of Canada decriminalized marijuana and due to pressure from the US the laws went back into effect. And not to sound like a conspiract theorist, but ever heard of the North American Union? I don't think it's gonna happen any time soon(hopefully not ever) but I could see some sort of union like the EU happening here.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I've helped train people in the army, your hand to hand skills aren't as good as you think they are.




Thank you for generalizing us. If you have worked with the army on said task, you should know that not everyone in the army is trained on the same level of combatives. I happen to be in a unit that is all about combatives. Even if I was a civilian, I'm sure I could show that kid a thing or two about blacking out.

You probably worked with pogues (people who do not have a combat job in the army, ie. communication, supply, cooks, etc.)

----------


## DeathCell

> Thank you for generalizing us. If you have worked with the army on said task, you should know that not everyone in the army is trained on the same level of combatives. I happen to be in a unit that is all about combatives. Even if I was a civilian, I'm sure I could show that kid a thing or two about blacking out.
> 
> You probably worked with pogues (people who do not have a combat job in the army, ie. communication, supply, cooks, etc.)



The army calls me everyday, they must understand how good my aim always has been in Paintball, and Counter-strike.

Hahaha

----------


## Universal Mind

> The US operates through economic imperialism rather than territorial. So, to answer the question, they did take Canada over a long time ago.



Democracy is not imperialistic.  We influence Canada greatly, but we do not own Canada.  They have their own elections and make their own laws.  You are going to have to get Illuminati stuff into this to argue otherwise.   





> Universal Mind. I don't need to "prove" anything. It's all happening



 ::yddd:: 





> I've helped train people in the army, your hand to hand skills aren't as good as you think they are.



The U.S. military does NOT want to fuck with Ninja!   ::shock::

----------


## drewmandan

> Democracy is not imperialistic.  We influence Canada greatly, but we do not own Canada.  They have their own elections and make their own laws.  You are going to have to get Illuminati stuff into this to argue otherwise.



The US isn't democratic, it's a republic. Rome was also a republic during the first hundred years of its imperialistic expansion, so by counter example your assertion that republics can't be imperial is false. 

And like I said, *economic* imperialism, not territorial. If you influenced elections, that would most certainly be *territorial*.

For more conspiracy theories and nonsensical rantings, 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_imperialism

----------


## Universal Mind

> The US isn't democratic, it's a republic.



A democratic republic.  





> And like I said, *economic* imperialism, not territorial. If you influenced elections, that would most certainly be *territorial*.



If you want to call our strong economic influence "imperialistic", then whatever, but it is not any kind of "imperialism" that means we have "taken over" Canada.  They are free to do their thing.  We just influence what their best options are.  That's fair business, not take over.

----------


## DeathCell

> A democratic republic.  
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to call our strong economic influence "imperialistic", then whatever, but it is not any kind of "imperialism" that means we have "taken over" Canada.  They are free to do their thing.  We just influence what their best options are.  That's fair business, not take over.



Do it our way, or we will stop doing "insert service here" etc..

----------


## StonedApe

But why would US invade Canada? It's a stupid question in the first place. We can't use scare tactics and say "Look at those guys. They look different from us and they look kinda like those guys who bombed us, so lets get us some revenge."

We went into the middle east in order to start a long lasting war which rich people can make money off of. It's pretty simple. The politicians needed more things to scare people about, so they started the War On TERROR!!(oh shit, I'm terrorfied). Politics in this country are all about fear. If you create fear or instablility, people will want more safety and government. (Some)Rich people want more government right now so thats what we get. Barack Obama did just win the election, are you gonna tell me that the current trend isn't for more goverment from both sides? We've got the bailoput wich is supported by just about everyone in office but good old Ron Paul. 

This war had nothing to do with helping people in the middle east, get over it. You don't help people by starting a war in their country, that's pretty fucking dumb right there. If this was about taking Saddam out of power, there are many other ways to do that. I mean the CIA gets rid of leaders all the time. BUt beyond that, why should we be fucking with things in the middle east? This country has enough of it's own problems. Lets focus on our own shit before we try to help others.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Do it our way, or we will stop doing "insert service here" etc..



That just means that they really like what we can do for them, not that we own them.  We could invade Canada right now and own the entire country with all of that oil before our 5:00 traffic gets going this afternoon, yet we don't.  





> But why would US invade Canada? It's a stupid question in the first place. We can't use scare tactics and say "Look at those guys. They look different from us and they look kinda like those guys who bombed us, so lets get us some revenge."



You are making up the "look different from us" thing.  We don't give a shit what terrorists look like.  We care that they want to kill us.  We care that the Middle East needs to come out of the dark ages.  We care when a government is willing to supply terrorists with means of doing major harm. Etc.  





> We went into the middle east in order to start a long lasting war which rich people can make money off of. It's pretty simple. The politicians needed more things to scare people about, so they started the War On TERROR!!(oh shit, I'm terrorfied). Politics in this country are all about fear. If you create fear or instablility, people will want more safety and government. (Some)Rich people want more government right now so thats what we get. Barack Obama did just win the election, are you gonna tell me that the current trend isn't for more goverment from both sides? We've got the bailoput wich is supported by just about everyone in office but good old Ron Paul.



The war is about way more than what you are acknowledging.  You are just repeating what the left so shrilly screams because it makes them feel good about themselves, and you are completely ignoring very real problems.  





> This war had nothing to do with helping people in the middle east, get over it. You don't help people by starting a war in their country, that's pretty fucking dumb right there. If this was about taking Saddam out of power, there are many other ways to do that. I mean the CIA gets rid of leaders all the time. BUt beyond that, why should we be fucking with things in the middle east? This country has enough of it's own problems. Lets focus on our own shit before we try to help others.



Liberating a country in the heart of the Middle East is one part of the enormous picture.  You should read what I said earlier in this thread.  I went way into the full major details.  

The war is about a gigantic picture and not any one thing.  A few specific selling points were focussed on by Bush, Cheney, and Powell, but the war is about a whole lot of very important stuff.

----------


## Capacious Turtle

> Alright, lets see......
> 
> REBUILDING A COUNTRY TAKES TIME JACKASSES. If we left now there would be a civil war, and even more people would die. 
> 
> Liberals are gonna come one here and say, there would be no furture civil war if we never attacked. No, there would be a crazy dictator with a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Now the liberals would say "they never found any nuclear bombs, waaaaaa, waaaaaaaaa". No, but we found uranium, a necessity for nukes. But no,no let me guess, he wasnt using them for nuclear bombs to kill people. Why would sadam do that? He was actually using it to power a flux capacitor for his time machine made out of a Dolorian so he could go back in time to win the first Gulf War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> So, what do you think the uranium was being used for. Leo, i await your response



  Sorry to hop in the topic so late to an early reply, but really. What's with these so called intelligent conservatives always jumping to "you durn liberal" as the the first line of defense against any anti war statements? For an example, my dad is about as right wing as it gets, a retired police officer and gun nut, but he absolutely hates the war in Iraq. He hates seeing our boys dying for no reason. I have two marine cousins who I don't want to see die over absolutely nothing. So before you go on about liberals, remember not everyone who is against the war is some "crazy wuss liberal." I saw you pointed out a few things "liberals" are going to say, but really, you're just generalizing here. That's the same way as a liberal saying conservatives are all racist, or they all want to kill for oil, or that they are all closed minded fools who only have political agendas =). 

I might be repeating stuff that's already been said, but yeah.

----------


## StonedApe

> That just means that they really like what we can do for them, not that we own them.  We could invade Canada right now and own the entire country with all of that oil before our 5:00 traffic gets going this afternoon, yet we don't.



Attacking Canada is just plain fucking dumb. We have no motive whatsoever. If 9/11 wouldn't have happened then Iraq wouldn't have happened. If you are going to start a war you have to have some kind of justification, even it's just bullshit and propaganda, you still need something to tell the people. If your trying to just prove that the war is about more than just oil and money I agree. It's also about politics, power, and spreading American influence in the world.





> You are making up the "look different from us" thing.  We don't give a shit what terrorists look like.  We care that they want to kill us.  We care that the Middle East needs to come out of the dark ages.  We care when a government is willing to supply terrorists with means of doing major harm. Etc.



Why do you think that they want to kill us? Maybe because we have a completely retarded policy towards the middle east. Why start a war when we needed to change our policy. Saddam wouldn't be in power and things would have never gotten so fucked up in that country if it weren't for our policies.





> The war is about way more than what you are acknowledging.  You are just repeating what the left so shrilly screams because it makes them feel good about themselves, and you are completely ignoring very real problems.



The war on terrorism is about money and politics and is in no way ever going to stop terrorism(I'd like to elaborate, but then this post will end up pages long, basically it's similar to the war on drugs). The only intelligible argument for the war in Iraq is completely based entirely on terrorism. I agree that things are done in a backwards way in that country, but things are done in a backwards way in this country too. We are not that much more civilized then they are. Fix the education system(and quite a few other things) before you go fucking with other peoples business. This country has enough of it's own problems, we don't need to start a war.

I probably should read your earlier posts before criticizing your point of view, but I personally see no reason ever to start wars. If the middle east had ever actually been a threat maybe I could see where your coming from, but what about Korea, what about China? They are both _much_ bigger threats.

The war is about a *gigantic picture* and not any one thing[/QUOTE]
WW3? That may be an exaggeration, but don't you think this shit is gonna spread to Iran? I don't see how it isn't.

My basic argument is why try to change others when we ourselves have many problems. We need to educate people in this country. We need to get rid of this attitude that the American way is right and everyone else must follow. America is not #1, shut the fuck up(not directed at you, just people who still think this, and there are a lot of people who do).
My second point is that what we need to do is change OUR policy towards the middle east if we want to stop the hatred they have towards us. Starting a war is not a good way to calm people down. I just think there are many other ways to accomplish change in the middle east that are much better than a war.

----------


## SpecialInterests

If you think you live in a democratic country you are totally delusional. You have no choice. That shit that they shuffle around every 4 years is them watching you jerk off as you walk up to that voting poll. Voting is a meaningless activity.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Which foreign policy is more retarded? Ours, because we want to change to middle east with our influence, or theirs becasue they want to kill us?

----------


## StonedApe

That's not their policy at all. That is a few terrorists policy who want to kill us because we've bombed the shit out of their home for years.

Look if you wanna change the middle east so that they don't have a dictatorship then fine, but find some way to do it other than starting a war. If they actually did something hostile then maybe you could make an argument for war. I still would disagree, but at least it wouldn't be completely retarded.

But which is easier. Change our policies or start a war and use force to get them to change theirs?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> That's not their policy at all. That is a few terrorists policy who want to kill us because we've bombed the shit out of their home for years.
> 
> Look if you wanna change the middle east so that they don't have a dictatorship then fine, but find some way to do it other than starting a war. If they actually did something hostile then maybe you could make an argument for war. I still would disagree, but at least it wouldn't be completely retarded.
> 
> But which is easier. Change our policies or start a war and use force to get them to change theirs?



But how do we solve the problem of people who want to kill foreigners without intervening at all? I think they have proven they can't solve the problem themselves. And it is a worldwide problem.

----------


## StonedApe

> But how do we solve the problem of people who want to kill foreigners without intervening at all? I think they have proven they can't solve the problem themselves. And it is a worldwide problem.



How does this war solve that problem either. It doesn't at all. That's what I meant earlier when I said the war on terror is like the war on drugs. It doesn't solve any problems, it just makes it look like the government is doing something to solve the problem when all they are doing is making money for themselves and creating more and more bureaucracy and restrictions. 

It seems to me that it(war/excessive force in general) makes things worse. Does anyone know if there have been more or less incidents of terrorism since the US started it's war on terror. These "wars" make half assed attempts at solving the problem so that the people don't think to question anything and think that everything is alright. No need to think about things, the government got it under control.

How about we(the whole world, not just US)set up an international terrorism unit that investigates the activities of secretive groups like al quesadilia? Or maybe we could have given saddam some kind of ultimatum? Or just killed him.

In what way does this war stop or reduce terrorism? Terrorism stems from hatred. Hatred stems from aggression which is what our policy has been in the middle east for a while. To me it at best reduces it slightly for a brief period, but overall does little. Like I've said before, as long as there is government there will be revolutionaries(terrorists).

Can you please answer that^. And also just a side question, does anyone know if there is any evidence that Saddam ever supported any terrorist? I know that he hid them or something like that, but I wasn't sure how it is they knew he knew or whatever. It's not really important to the discussion, I'll agree that saddam is not a great leader, but that doesn't mean we have the right to start a war.

----------


## SpecialInterests

That's why they created a war on terror. They know that that war will NEVER end. They can drag that shit on as long as they want to. More money and control for them. Bah - the real terrorists are the ones wearing $5000 business suits working on wall street. They're trying to clean up the street criminals to make life safer for the business criminals. 

@Universal Mind - What do you want me to "prove" anyway? That we're living in an american empire that expands through the useage of economics? That war is just a tool to make American corporations even richer so they control even more valuable assets? So they can establish more military bases around the world in case they need to keep the population/governments pinned down if they need to? This is either something you acknowledge and accept, or it's something you ignore like 99&#37; of the rest of the ignorant society. It's up to you bud. But quite frankly I don't really give a f*** if you choose to ignore it or not. More power to me if you choose to turn a blind eye to it all.

----------


## drewmandan

> Bah - the real terrorists are the ones wearing $5000 business suits working on wall street. They're trying to clean up the street criminals to make life safer for the business criminals.



No, the real terrorists are the ones in uniform wreaking havoc among the population. The real terrorist organization is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Don't blame well-educated execs on Wall Street. They're not the ones that take your money by force and use it to fund your own imprisonment. Use your brain, please. By blaming the rich, you're just falling into the trap of socialism laid out by the government.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> No, the real terrorists are the ones in uniform wreaking havoc among the population. The real terrorist organization is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Don't blame well-educated execs on Wall Street. They're not the ones that take your money by force and use it to fund your own imprisonment. Use your brain, please. By blaming the rich, you're just falling into the trap of socialism laid out by the government.



Don't blame the rich? The ultrarich and ultrapowerful banks and corporations are the VERY foundation of the inequalities and corruption in our political and social structured world - How can you even say that?

And "don't blame the well-educated execs on wall street"? Do you even know what they are educated in? How to make profit. That's their specialty! The profit structure of this world is what makes it so inequal and unjust. How are we funding our own imprisonment when no other options are laid out for us? The united states is a giant shopping mall filled with ignorant dumbed down people. It's not their fault dude. The rich and powerful CREATED this society. No other options have been given to them. The public has been conditioned to passively observe and accept the increasingly worse conditions on this planet and just turn a blind eye to it all. It's what they've been trained to do and that's what we're seeing.

----------


## DuB

> The united states is a giant shopping mall filled with ignorant dumbed down people.



Oh please. And Canada is a mecca of enlightenment? Could you possibly have a more simplistic, stereotypical worldview?  ::roll::

----------


## Universal Mind

> Attacking Canada is just plain fucking dumb. We have no motive whatsoever. If 9/11 wouldn't have happened then Iraq wouldn't have happened. If you are going to start a war you have to have some kind of justification, even it's just bullshit and propaganda, you still need something to tell the people. If your trying to just prove that the war is about more than just oil and money I agree. It's also about politics, power, and spreading American influence in the world.



Democracy doesn't lead to social advancement?  Social advancement does not lead to stability?  History shows otherwise.  

Also, read the earlier parts of this thread.  We talked a lot about the reasons.  





> Why do you think that they want to kill us? Maybe because we have a completely retarded policy towards the middle east. Why start a war when we needed to change our policy. Saddam wouldn't be in power and things would have never gotten so fucked up in that country if it weren't for our policies.



I agree that allying with the Hussein regime was a terrible idea, even though we had a common enemy.  Hindsight is 20/20.  

If you want to know reasons beyond Middle East intervention (which is understandable even if you don't agree with it) that terrorists want to kill us, read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation".  You can Google it.  (I am tired of posting it.)  It represents the philosophy of Al Qaeda and the general mentality of Islamofascism.  They hate us also because of our non-Islamic status and our secular influence on the world.  Al Qaeda even DEMANDS that we ban stock trade and alcohol before they call off their war on us.  Think about that. 





> The war on terrorism is about money and politics and is in no way ever going to stop terrorism(I'd like to elaborate, but then this post will end up pages long, basically it's similar to the war on drugs). The only intelligible argument for the war in Iraq is completely based entirely on terrorism. I agree that things are done in a backwards way in that country, but things are done in a backwards way in this country too. We are not that much more civilized then they are. Fix the education system(and quite a few other things) before you go fucking with other peoples business. This country has enough of it's own problems, we don't need to start a war.



We did not start the war.  It is a continuation of Gulf War I.  The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire provisions.  

We are worlds more advanced than most of the Middle East.  Go spend a week in Syria and see for yourself, if you dare.  





> I probably should read your earlier posts before criticizing your point of view, but I personally see no reason ever to start wars. If the middle east had ever actually been a threat maybe I could see where your coming from, but what about Korea, what about China? They are both _much_ bigger threats.



North Korea and China want to live.  They can be reasoned with.  Islamofascists cannot.  





> WW3? That may be an exaggeration, but don't you think this shit is gonna spread to Iran? I don't see how it isn't.



It might spread to Iran, but that would help our cause even more.  The Iranian government has got to go.  





> My basic argument is why try to change others when we ourselves have many problems. We need to educate people in this country. We need to get rid of this attitude that the American way is right and everyone else must follow. America is not #1, shut the fuck up(not directed at you, just people who still think this, and there are a lot of people who do).
> My second point is that what we need to do is change OUR policy towards the middle east if we want to stop the hatred they have towards us. Starting a war is not a good way to calm people down. I just think there are many other ways to accomplish change in the middle east that are much better than a war.



Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation". You will see that simply getting out of the Middle East is not the answer.

----------


## drewmandan

> Don't blame the rich? The ultrarich and ultrapowerful banks and corporations are the VERY foundation of the inequalities and corruption in our political and social structured world - How can you even say that?



Executives don't put a gun to your head if you fail to pay them tribute.

----------


## DeathCell

> No, the real terrorists are the ones in uniform wreaking havoc among the population. The real terrorist organization is the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Don't blame well-educated execs on Wall Street. They're not the ones that take your money by force and use it to fund your own imprisonment. Use your brain, please. By blaming the rich, you're just falling into the trap of socialism laid out by the government.



Blaim rich people for taking all the jobs out of America and moving it to Third world countries where they can pay people pennies on the dollar and ship it back to America and wonder why no one can afford their products.

That is the fault of the Corporations, and it's CEO's and decision makers.

----------


## drewmandan

> Blaim rich people for taking all the jobs out of America and moving it to Third world countries where they can pay people pennies on the dollar and ship it back to America and wonder why no one can afford their products.
> 
> That is the fault of the Corporations, and it's CEO's and decision makers.



No one's forcing you to buy those products.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Blaim rich people for taking all the jobs out of America and moving it to Third world countries where they can pay people pennies on the dollar and ship it back to America and wonder why no one can afford their products.
> 
> That is the fault of the Corporations, and it's CEO's and decision makers.



Some corporations do that.  However, thank corporations for the luxuries you have and for the massive economic stimulation they create.  Without corporations, we would all be very backward ass.  

Executives are shallow, sociopathic, oinking pigs.  That is the truth.  However, I am glad we have those oinking pigs on this planet.  They enrich our lives.  That does not mean I like  them or want to hang out with them.  I can't stand them.  I despise the ground they walk on.  But they are a necessary part of the system, just like arrogant doctors (Do you want a surgeon who says, "I think I'm sort of good at this and sort of important."?), cold hearted nurses (Do you want a nurse who says, "Oh, the humanity!  I can't bear these sights I see all day!  It's just so sad!"?), and snake in the grass lawyers (Do you want a lawyer who says, "Gosh, that would be misleading.  I want to be goody goody Mr. Cleaver and be totally straight with the jury."?).  You don't want the people who create jobs and generate wealth to say, "I want to sort of sell some stuff or something.  Maybe next week, I guess."  Pigs are a necessary part of the social ecology.  Hate them, but be glad we have them.

----------


## DeathCell

> Some corporations do that.  However, thank corporations for the luxuries you have and for the massive economic stimulation they create.  Without corporations, we would all be very backward ass.  
> 
> Executives are shallow, sociopathic, oinking pigs.  That is the truth.  However, I am glad we have those oinking pigs on this planet.  They enrich our lives.  That does not mean I like  them or want to hang out with them.  I can't stand them.  I despise the ground they walk on.  But they are a necessary part of the system, just like arrogant doctors (Do you want a surgeon who says, "I think I'm sort of good at this and sort of important."?), cold hearted nurses (Do you want a nurse who says, "Oh, the humanity!  I can't bear these sights I see all day!  It's just so sad!"?), and snake in the grass lawyers (Do you want a lawyer who says, "Gosh, that would be misleading.  I want to be goody goody Mr. Cleaver and be totally straight with the jury."?).  You don't want the people who create jobs and generate wealth to say, "I want to sort of sell some stuff or something.  Maybe next week, I guess."  Pigs are a necessary part of the social ecology.  Hate them, but be glad we have them.



I dunno I imagine a world without Corporations wouldn't be so bad, or at least corporations as we see them.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> Some corporations do that.  However, thank corporations for the luxuries you have and for the massive economic stimulation they create.  Without corporations, we would all be very backward ass.  
> 
> Executives are shallow, sociopathic, oinking pigs.  That is the truth.  However, I am glad we have those oinking pigs on this planet.  They enrich our lives.  That does not mean I like  them or want to hang out with them.  I can't stand them.  I despise the ground they walk on.  But they are a necessary part of the system, just like arrogant doctors (Do you want a surgeon who says, "I think I'm sort of good at this and sort of important."?), cold hearted nurses (Do you want a nurse who says, "Oh, the humanity!  I can't bear these sights I see all day!  It's just so sad!"?), and snake in the grass lawyers (Do you want a lawyer who says, "Gosh, that would be misleading.  I want to be goody goody Mr. Cleaver and be totally straight with the jury."?).  You don't want the people who create jobs and generate wealth to say, "I want to sort of sell some stuff or something.  Maybe next week, I guess."  Pigs are a necessary part of the social ecology.  Hate them, but be glad we have them.



I don't really understand your logic. You call the people that operate these corporations shallow, sociopathic, oinking pigs, and you think they supply us with luxurious lives. Have you taken a look around you lately? Have you taken a good look at what is going on in this world? It's fucking embarassing man. If you take pride in the work that these corporations carry out and supply to you - you are verrrrryyy shallow. You are inside your own little boxed in fairy-tale world and the only thing that matters is what is going on in your life. 

Garbage in ---> Garbage out. It's that simple.

Do some research and see how Nike, Walmart, Adidas, etc lobby government groups so they can install new sweatshops in third world countries. So they can employ millions of men, children and women in inhuman like conditions. There is women in these sweatshops that are forced to wrap a scarf around their waste when they have their period because these people are only allowed 2 breaks a day in their 12 hour/6 days a week jobs that pays less than $2 a day. There are millions of people that have had land blatantly stolen from them and cultures have been destroyed so that exxonmobil and royal dutch shell can get in their and absolutely rape the land to find oil reserves. People have been SLAUGHTERED in trying to stop american corporations doing this to their land.

Universal Mind - Ask these billions of innocent people about how corporations bring these LUXURIES you talk about. I'm sure they'll give you a different piece of mind. Ask them if "they" are glad to have these corporations destroying humanity.

----------


## Original Poster

I think there should be a balance of power between the executives and the executive branch.  For instance, I think the executive branch should claim and use the right to put an embargo on all companies shipping to the U.S. that don't provide living wages to all their employees.  The way CHina is linked to the US, when the US can't afford to purchase, China will no longer be able to afford to produce.  However, if the US simply launched an embargo of China's goods until they change their social and political structure then two things would happen, both beneficial the the United States.  Either China would transform its structure making a more healthy society in general, or other bsuinesses would change/add new product lines to fill the niches China would leave.

ANother thing is, the executive branch needs to play a bigger role in creating safeguards on Wallstreet and in investing in general.  The money stolen through these Ponzi schemes cannot be recovered, and that's absolute nonsense.  People should be fined the full amount of damages, and those damages should be used to bail us out from the crises, not the American tax dollar.  The executives who were creating bad investments in the first place should be fined.  The oil cartels should be fined for their own bail out.  It was their greed that caused the system to fail, they should pay the penalties.  They should also all be put in an old barn somewhere and burned alive for treason.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> I dunno I imagine a world without Corporations wouldn't be so bad, or at least corporations as we see them.



I couldn't agree more. Most people aren't able to come close to imagining a different lifestyle. A world with a different social/political structure. These types of shitty lifestyles have been laid out for these people and they aren't able to imagine it any other way. They just accept it and never question it.

I had an idea. I'm sure most people reading this are aware of "The Big 3" bailout that has been all over the news lately.

Imagine if all three (GM, Ford, Chrysler) went under, and a new type of company arose. This company wouldn't have stocks. It wouldn't advertise. It wouldn't have overpaid, ignorant CEO's. This company only has 1 goal - and that goal is to make cheap efficient cars for EVERYONE. No more bowing down to the corporate oil interest. We no longer need oil. There is patents for electric car engines out there that can EASILY meet all of our needs. This company would supply every single car used on this planet. It's only goal would to be find new ways to make them even cheaper to mass produce and even more efficent. Eventually, there would be no need for car insurance anymore because cars would be so cheap to buy there would be no need to insure them. Almost everyone would beable to buy these cheap, efficent cars hassle free.

Now, apply this logic to every single corporation on the planet. The standard of life would SKYROCKET for EVERYBODY. Not just Americans.

Obviously we'd never see this type of corporation in our current perpetual profit structure. I don't think we'd ever see anything like this even in a monetary based economy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't really understand your logic. You call the people that operate these corporations shallow, sociopathic, oinking pigs, and you think they supply us with luxurious lives. Have you taken a look around you lately? Have you taken a good look at what is going on in this world? It's fucking embarassing man. If you take pride in the work that these corporations carry out and supply to you - you are verrrrryyy shallow. You are inside your own little boxed in fairy-tale world and the only thing that matters is what is going on in your life. 
> 
> Garbage in ---> Garbage out. It's that simple.
> 
> Do some research and see how Nike, Walmart, Adidas, etc lobby government groups so they can install new sweatshops in third world countries. So they can employ millions of men, children and women in inhuman like conditions. There is women in these sweatshops that are forced to wrap a scarf around their waste when they have their period because these people are only allowed 2 breaks a day in their 12 hour/6 days a week jobs that pays less than $2 a day. There are millions of people that have had land blatantly stolen from them and cultures have been destroyed so that exxonmobil and royal dutch shell can get in their and absolutely rape the land to find oil reserves. People have been SLAUGHTERED in trying to stop american corporations doing this to their land.
> 
> Universal Mind - Ask these billions of innocent people about how corporations bring these LUXURIES you talk about. I'm sure they'll give you a different piece of mind. Ask them if "they" are glad to have these corporations destroying humanity.



First of all, try to have this conversation without sounding like a ten year old kid who is lashing out because he just got grounded.  Okay?

What you said did not counter what I said.  I know that corporations do evil things too.  I said they are evil and called them pigs.  Did you miss that?  The sweat shops are voluntary, however.  I know that corporations fuck people over as much as they can, but the vast majority of them do not own slaves.  The people in the sweat shops only have alternatives that are even worse.  That is why they choose the sweat shops.  Right?  

What are you using right now?  A computer.  What allows you to use the internet?  Software.  Who makes those things?  Exactly.  

Corporate capitalism is exactly what keeps YOUR country from being third world.  Face it.





> Imagine if all three (GM, Ford, Chrysler) went under, and a new type of company arose. This company wouldn't have stocks. It wouldn't advertise. It wouldn't have overpaid, ignorant CEO's. This company only has 1 goal - and that goal is to make cheap efficient cars for EVERYONE.



It is all shaped by market demand, not your fantasies.

----------


## drewmandan

> Imagine if all three (GM, Ford, Chrysler) went under, and a new type of company arose. This company wouldn't have stocks. It wouldn't advertise. It wouldn't have overpaid, ignorant CEO's. This company only has 1 goal - and that goal is to make cheap efficient cars for EVERYONE.



If the Big 3 went bankrupt, foreign "transplant" factories would open up in the northern states within a few months (after the state legislatures are forced to ban unions, which they would be) and the net result would actually be more jobs and cheaper cars. This, of course, assumes you understand that the UAW is unsustainable.

Now, as it turns out, your idea for a non-capitalist car company was tried in the USSR and East Germany. I'll let you research the consequences of that little idea at your leisure.

----------


## StonedApe

> Democracy doesn't lead to social advancement?  Social advancement does not lead to stability?  History shows otherwise.



Too bad we don't have a proper democracy. Obama won, remember. This country is controlled by media. Media is controlled by a handful of people. Voting is a fucking joke. I agree that the middle east needs change, but war is not the answer.





> If you want to know reasons beyond Middle East intervention (which is understandable even if you don't agree with it) that terrorists want to kill us, read Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation".  You can Google it.  (I am tired of posting it.)  It represents the philosophy of Al Qaeda and the general mentality of Islamofascism.  They hate us also because of our non-Islamic status and our secular influence on the world.  Al Qaeda even DEMANDS that we ban stock trade and alcohol before they call off their war on us.  Think about that.



So how is this war gonna change that? Besides that terrorists are fucking weak. I'm not afraid of them. That's like being afraid of tornadoes. Sometimes that shit will kill you, but it's no reason to go around being paranoid. And that is certainly the attitude in America. We have all these alert systems and whatnot that are flat out bullshit just to scare people. How will this war end terrorism from the middle east? I agree that something should be done, especially now, but it should be something that actually prevents terrorism, not war.





> North Korea and China want to live.  They can be reasoned with.  Islamofascists cannot.



So we just kill ALL of them? Where does it end? At some point we have to stop killing our problems away and actually do something about them.





> It might spread to Iran, but that would help our cause even more.  The Iranian government has got to go.



War is not the answer. A society founded on violence will never be civilized.





> Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's "Letter to the American Nation". You will see that simply getting out of the Middle East is not the answer.



I can certainly see why you'd assume that I think we should just pull out immediately, but that's not my opinion. I think starting the war in the first place was fucking retarded(I know I didn't respond to what you said about us not starting this but I don't want this post to be any longer). If they had been moving outside of their country and trying to spread their tyranny I could see engaging them and stopping that, but they weren't. This war was started because of WMDs that didn't even exist, how can you say it is justified?

I  agree that we can't leave now. We made a mess and now we have to clean it up, but it's because we keep fucking with these people that they hate us. We need to apologize to these people and try to end the hate. The hate is the problem, not the terrorism. Terrorism is a byproduct. It's like assuming that you can solve the problem of crime without solving the problem of poverty, it just won't ever happen.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Terrorism is a byproduct. It's like assuming that you can solve the problem of crime without solving the problem of poverty, it just won't ever happen.



Exactly!  I was about to write a long post, but you said exactly my point at the end of your post.  We are trying to get capitalism and democracy to spread in the Middle East to fix the poverty and all of the backward assness and ignorance that comes with it.  It is the most important thing we can do.  In the process, we are doing lots of other things, and I have no idea how we could achieve them without war.

If we were worried about an occasional cafe bomb, we probably would not have a war on terror.  We are putting tons of energy into preventing mass terrorist attacks, however.  We would like for Homeland Security to eventually not have such a big wad to chew, and we have legitimate concerns of governments eventually getting WMD's into the hands of terrorists.  That goes way beyond something like an occasional tornado.  I am not afraid of tornadoes at all, and I have come across several of them.  One of them even knocked a tree into my house last year.  But I am afraid of cities being blown up.  

Make sure you read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter.  You will see that the hatred goes way beyond wanting us out of the Middle East.  So do the demands.

----------


## drewmandan

> and I have no idea how we could achieve them without war.



How about a CIA-sponsored coup of the problematic leadership?

----------


## Universal Mind

> How about a CIA-sponsored coup of the problematic leadership?



I like that, but how could the next however many in line be trusted not to step in and take their places?  How could they be trusted to have governments where the people ultimately run things?

----------


## drewmandan

> I like that, but how could the next however many in line be trusted not to step in and take their places?  How could they be trusted to have governments where the people ultimately run things?



In what way would an all-out war address this problem that a coup wouldn't?

----------


## StonedApe

Yeah, but don't you think that we need to get capitalism and democracy back working properly in this country before we go spreading it around? 

I like capitilaism, but not this brand of super capitalism where things are basically controlled by the (few)super rich rather than the people(many). Extreme consumerism isn't good. It's good when companies that actually provide useful services are able to flourish they way they can in capitalism, but we've taken things a bit far. Mccdonalds and Wal mart for example. These places put out garbage yet people love them. It's fucking gross, and I know people should be able to choose what they want, but there being duped into buying into that stuff. Death to all marketers!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Personally I think if we were to do away with censorship and prohibition it would fix a hell of a lot of problems like these. The system would work itself out.

I also see democracy as something that could lead to a better society, but we don't have a democracy. If we don't do something to fix our ecomomic system(like NOT have a bailout for starters) we are gonna turn into some kind of oligarchy.

I guess I mainly oppose the war because 1 I don't think now is the time for us to be changing others, and 2 I think we could have done this(gotten rid of saddam) without a war. I agree that it would be difficult to do this in a manner that wouldn't just set up another bad government, but we could have at the very least tried something else before just going all gung hoe and starting a war. I suggest the coup idea as drew said.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yeah, but don't you think that we need to get capitalism and democracy back working properly in this country before we go spreading it around? 
> 
> I like capitilaism, but not this brand of super capitalism where things are basically controlled by the (few)super rich rather than the people(many). Extreme consumerism isn't good. It's good when companies that actually provide useful services are able to flourish they way they can in capitalism, but we've taken things a bit far. Mccdonalds and Wal mart for example. These places put out garbage yet people love them. It's fucking gross, and I know people should be able to choose what they want, but there being duped into buying into that stuff. Death to all marketers!!!!!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
> Personally I think if we were to do away with censorship and prohibition it would fix a hell of a lot of problems like these. The system would work itself out.
> 
> I also see democracy as something that could lead to a better society, but we don't have a democracy. If we don't do something to fix our ecomomic system(like NOT have a bailout for starters) we are gonna turn into some kind of oligarchy.
> 
> I guess I mainly oppose the war because 1 I don't think now is the time for us to be changing others, and 2 I think we could have done this(gotten rid of saddam) without a war. I agree that it would be difficult to do this in a manner that wouldn't just set up another bad government, but we could have at the very least tried something else before just going all gung hoe and starting a war. I suggest the coup idea as drew said.



We have the richest and most advanced country in history.  Even our homeless people are fat and have cool toys.  

We should improve our own country _while_ cleaning up the Middle East.  





> In what way would an all-out war address this problem that a coup wouldn't?



We pulled a coup.  The Hussein regime is gone.  Yet we are still at war.  We have no choice but to fight _back_ while getting the new government off the ground.

----------


## drewmandan

> We pulled a coup.  The Hussein regime is gone.  Yet we are still at war.  We have no choice but to fight _back_ while getting the new government off the ground.



Now you're switching goal posts. I'm talking about a coup, meaning a series of assassins goes in and kills/captures the problematic leaders and installs friendly leaders. Using this definition of coup, ie. not an invasion, how could an invasion solve the problem of untrustworthy puppets that this coup could not?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Now you're switching goal posts. I'm talking about a coup, meaning a series of assassins goes in and kills/captures the problematic leaders and installs friendly leaders. Using this definition of coup, ie. not an invasion, how could an invasion solve the problem of untrustworthy puppets that this coup could not?



I am saying that no matter how we could have overthrown the government, a problem still remains.  We now have to use military force to secure the new government.  War is necessary either way. 

As for just the overthrow itself, maybe we could have done a more secretive and selective coup, but we would have had a ton of people to kill and would have had issues with no telling who rushing in preventing our control afterwards.  The way we did it gave us control right away.

----------


## drewmandan

> I am saying that no matter how we could have overthrown the government, a problem still remains.  We now have to use military force to secure the new government.  War is necessary either way.



History is full of examples of coups without war. I trust you're diligent enough to find them. 





> As for just the overthrow itself, maybe we could have done a more secretive and selective coup, but we would have had a ton of people to kill and would have had issues with no telling who rushing in preventing our control afterwards.  The way we did it gave us control right away.



You call this control?

----------


## Universal Mind

> History is full of examples of coups without war. I trust you're diligent enough to find them.



Oh nice, time for you to initiate snootiness again, huh?  Let's hang out some time.   ::roll:: 

I trust you have the potential to be diligent enough to address more than just part of the concept I illustrated.  No kidding there have been coups without war.  That is so beside the point.  What governments were overthrown by coup and replaced by democracies where a high percentage of the population had been brainwashed into thinking democracy is Satanic?  

Get it?





> You call this control?



I call it a transition phase in which the new government is still in power.  To that extent, it is definitely control.

----------


## SpecialInterests

> It is all shaped by market demand, not your fantasies.



Did you miss the part where I said it wouldn't work in our current social/political structured world? When I said it probably wouldn't even work in a monetary based economy? Apparently you missed me saying that. I realize it's shaped by market demand thanks.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Did you miss the part where I said it wouldn't work in our current social/political structured world? When I said it probably wouldn't even work in a monetary based economy? Apparently you missed me saying that. I realize it's shaped by market demand thanks.



No, you did not say it wouldn't _work_.  You said it wouldn't _happen_, and you said it after a long rant about how well you think it would work.  My point was that it would not work.  It would be a disaster.

----------


## DeathCell

It's a sad day, when Americans forget the importance of unions.

----------


## acatalephobic

*"War is not the answer. A society founded on violence will never be civilized."*
^^^stonedape said so much with that phrase.


 :Clap: 

*Let us not forget that one of the main reasons why the Middle East is so at war with itself is because after one of the WW's, the rest of the world stuck there self-righteous noses in and redefined all the boundaries the nations had drawn for themselves. Instead of allowing quarrelling groups to remain in their seperate nations, someone decided it was a good idea to mix them all up.* 

Did that* HAVE* to be done? No. But because we were on the winning side, we decided to split up the nations in a way that gave us control of the most oil. It only created more civil struggle. Will sticking our nose in again help the situation more now? Doubtful.

This is why I believe war and imperialism is always wrong. Not only do they kill people (the vast majority being innocents), and promote the idea that you can only get your point across through violence, and that its okay to force your beliefs on others if you have a bigger gun...

...but they *ONLY LEAD TO MORE WARS.*

I don't want to get into a _huge_ debate, because you guys already seem to have that pretty well covered. The only other thing I want to add is:

 ::barf:: 
_"North Korea and China want to live. They can be reasoned with. Islamofascists cannot. "_ 

= part of the reason why this war really gets my goat. *To say things like that is just plain racist.* 

To say that we need to punish countries because they have dictators is one thing, and to say we need to punish them because they have advanced weapons is another. [Neither of which I happen to agree with.]

Terrorism is not new. Its everywhere, and it has been for centuries. *Let us not forget if our founding fathers had not become enemies of the state, this country would not exist. Conversely, we became fascist the minute we decided we had more right to this land than the Native Americans did, who had lived her for thousands of years.* I'd say thats a pretty quick role-reversal.

But to say that one country deserves to be punished over another, when there are many other countries in fact that have dictators and nuclear weapons and commit genocide...? 

Thats just racist. 

Not only that, but I agree with Gwendolyn's statement in the first freaking page of this thread.

_"Thats facism."_

To call someone an Islamofascist without first calling yourself a fascist--*for your willingness to use violence to force your cause on others, even though you're condemning a country for doing the same thing*--is hypocritical, elitist, and downright racist. Also, your contradictoral tendancies to both hate and appreciate corporations that keep the kiddies distracted why they advance their own agendas...only adds to the fact that you are probably very much a fascist. Read ANYthing other than Ayn Rand, that shit is passe. Its 2008 for crying out loud. Evolve!




:peace:

----------


## acatalephobic

P.S. - I don't want to seem like a jerk. I just get really passionate about certain topics. After cooling off, I realized I may have crossed the line a tad.

I hope no one gets the idea that I'm insulting them personally, I just state my beliefs, and any personal comments toward anyone are related *only* to what you have said on the topic and, more specifically how I disagree with them. Its just how I make my point.

I'm sure you're a lovely person in other ways.


 :tongue2:

----------


## drewmandan

Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism. Stop fudging the lines.

----------


## acatalephobic

fas·cism  (fāsh'ĭz'əm)  n. 

1.
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority, *stringent socioeconomic controls*, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and a *policy of belligerent nationalism and racism*. 

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 


Synonyms: autocracy, absolutism, *bureaucracy*, despotism, *racism*



Throw in the less common usage of using money as the main criteria for power or influence, and that sounds like capitalism to me.

So does using status to force your beliefs on other sovereign nations.

Money = power is just another form of dictatorship.

Just saying.



 ::?:

----------


## Universal Mind

> _"North Korea and China want to live. They can be reasoned with. Islamofascists cannot. "_ 
> 
> = part of the reason why this war really gets my goat. *To say things like that is just plain racist.*



Oh, puke on yourself.  Racist?  Do you know how weak that cliche has gotten?  It has been used as a cheap cop out so many times that using it is worthless.  I am so sick of such self-righeous assumptions from people like you who have barely the tiniest conception of how the world works.  We are at war with nut cases who SEEK death.  Do you get that?  Think for a few seconds about that.  Did you do it?  THAT is what separates Islamofascists from the governments of North Korea and China.  Those countries can be and have been reasoned with.  You can go try that shit with Al Qaeda and insurgent terrorists and see how long it takes you to turn to ashes.  If you don't agree with my argument, then counter it, but don't go, "Uh, duh, I see no difference except the difference between Asian race and Arab race.  That must be it!  There is no other explanation, even the one he gave!  Duuuuuuhhhhhhh....."  It is pathetic of you to resort to that.  Now try actually countering my argument.  

And I don't want to punish Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or any other country.  I would love for them to be free and prosperous, as Afghanistan and Iraq will be.  I want to improve their governments and kill their terrorists, who want you dead as fried oysters by the way.  Understand the difference.   ::roll:: 

Fighting for liberation is not fascist.  It is what gave you the freedom to say moronic things on the internet and live the luxurious life of freedom you have and take for granted.  You are entitled to freedom until you become a victimizer, like a terrorist.  

Freedom is a fundamental right.  Giving it to unfree populations is not oppression.  It is liberation, which is the opposite.  I don't buy the notion that a government is minding its own business by oppressing its people.  Are you against fascism, or are you not?  You would demand freedom for yourself and your family if you did not have it.  Right?  Well, guess what.  We would too.   ::wink:: 

If you think war is not the answer, tell us what is.  

"You say you've got a real solution.  Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan."  - John Lennon

----------


## StonedApe

I've given what my opinion of "the solution" is on this site a few times. But mainly I'm sticking with the change our fucked up policies before we go in and KILL PEOPLE argument.(killing people is a bad thing just so you know)

In order to create any kind of lasting peace we need to establish a stateless society. That is the only way we could achieve a peaceful civilized society. Government is inherently immoral. Government always creates a situation were one man is more important than another man(class systems). As long as there are class systems there will be a sense of division between the people, which will always lead to hatred, which leads to fear, instability, war, and other problems. It also creates a system where the majority of people(think the whole world) are unable to get adequate goods and services.

In order to have a functioning anarchist society, you have to first create a society which functions well while only having a few laws. Right now the system is chock full of bullshit so it wouldn't work. We need to first do away with drug prohibition. Secondly we need to reform the justice system so that people get help rather than punishment. Third we need to reform the education system. If we were to teach people that they have to make moral decisions for themselves they might be able to grasp the idea of a stateless society. The education system is a big problem right now. The entire curriculum and way that it is taught needs to be reformed. But I won't get too far into the details, I'm no expert on education. 

All these things should be higher on the list of priorities than terrorism, as they are the root cause of all crime and immoral behavior(including terrorism). These are the things that keep the class system firmly in place.

Simply put, end the class system in America. Create a truly civilized functioning society here and then spread it to other countries through culture instead of war. Even if you disagree with the stateless thing, you have to at least admit that we need to fix our own democracy before we start one somewhere else. Look at who's been president lately. Are you seriously gonna tell me the electoral process is working? Bush TWICE, and now Obama.

Terrorism is not a major threat to your life UM. Stop being so paranoid.

----------


## drewmandan

> Money = power is just another form of dictatorship.



Gun or no gun? You know what, I'll just let you watch this video (if you have the attention span):

----------


## Universal Mind

> But mainly I'm sticking with the change our fucked up policies before we go in and KILL PEOPLE argument.(killing people is a bad thing just so you know)



War is never justified?  Ever? 





> In order to create any kind of lasting peace we need to establish a stateless society. That is the only way we could achieve a peaceful civilized society.



Wow, you are VERY trusting of others.  Trusting a society to act right without a government is like trusting prisoners to act right without any employees, locks, or fences at the prison.  

Anarchy is impossible any way.  As soon as there is no government, gangs fight over who can become the next government.  And one of them does.  





> All these things should be higher on the list of priorities than terrorism, as they are the root cause of all crime and immoral behavior(including terrorism). These are the things that keep the class system firmly in place.



Bingo.  That is exactly the kind of stuff we are trying to change in the world's hot bed of terrorist reproduction, but we know that trying to force class systems out of existence forces nations out of existence.  Different people are bettter at different things.  It is a fact of life.  Denial of that is not helpful. 





> Create a truly civilized functioning society here and then spread it to other countries through culture instead of war.



How????????





> Even if you disagree with the stateless thing, you have to at least admit that we need to fix our own democracy before we start one somewhere else.



No, we need to do both right now.  





> Terrorism is not a major threat to your life UM. Stop being so paranoid.



It would be if we stopped fighting it.   ::wink::   Stop being so naive.  This world is so much more evil than you are acknowledging.  

I have a question for you, and I really want you to answer it.  Please don't dodge it.  If you respond to nothing else I have said, at least tell me this...  Why do you feel so safe from terrorism even though large terrorist organizations exist for the purpose of killing masses of Americans?  Why?  

I think I know the answer.  You feel so safe because you know that the government is working its ass off to keep you safe and doing an excellent job of it.  Right?  If not, *tell me the real reason*.  Please give me a direct answer.  Don't side step.

----------


## Creativename

Nevermind, I decided I don't want to be dragged into this.

----------


## StonedApe

> War is never justified?  Ever?



Personally I think starting wars is never justified. Initiation of violence is always done out of ignorance. A wise man knows that he has no reason to go out and pick a fight. But that is besides the point with this war. This war was absolutely fucking stupid. The only argument you can make is war on terror. This argument is very weak as we have caused much more death in their country than they have in ours. Are we not the real cause of this hatred between countries? Did we not bomb them first? Truly they have never attacked us directly, this war is a fucking disgrace to war even. Even veterans are against. All 3 in my family that I've talked to are.






> Anarchy is impossible any way.  As soon as there is no government, gangs fight over who can become the next government.  And one of them does.



Not if you build strong communities in which gangs couldn't exist. If drugs are legal, how do gangs make their money. There are other ways, but gangs flourish because of poverty and the class system. What I'm saying is that you first get rid of that(by legalizing drugs, fixing the education system, and fixing the justice system), then you slowly phase out laws. But before we get rid of laws, we could certainly get rid of nations. Getting rid of laws is hundreds of years away, but getting rid of nations could happen with 100 years. And none of this can happen until we fix the electoral process, legalize drugs and fix education and prison systems. 

But let's put the idea of anarchy aside. I was just giving you my full plan, you did ask for it. Let's just talk about what should be done now, which is fixing our own democracy. President Bush, a neo conservative, won 2 times. This should obviously show that we need to reform the electoral process. At the very least we need to stop this ridiculous notion of having campaign ads on television. People should only vote if they have done some research and actually know who there voting for and why. We also really need to stop this two party bullshit. It ruins the whole idea of a democracy. Vote for people based on what they want to do, not what party their in. The two party process does no good. I suggest an end to political parties in general. It only creates more politics(bureaucracy, devil worship, call it what you will). We do not have a democracy, how the hell can we start one in a country by starting a war there? 





> I have a question for you, and I really want you to answer it.  Please don't dodge it.  If you respond to nothing else I have said, at least tell me this...  Why do you feel so safe from terrorism even though large terrorist organizations exist for the purpose of killing masses of Americans?  Why?  
> 
> I think I know the answer.  You feel so safe because you know that the government is working its ass off to keep you safe and doing an excellent job of it.  Right?  If not, *tell me the real reason*.  Please give me a direct answer.  Don't side step.



I have never been personally affected by terrorism. I know many people who have died, none from terrorism. Death is a part of life, there are many ways someone might die, but there is no reason to fear it. Terrorism happens much less often than tornadoes, though both do occur occasionally. *I'm not afraid of either of them because there is a very fucking low probabilistic chance I will die because of it.* True that someone may die from it, but that does not justify a war. The people there want to kill us because we fuck with them; change the policy of fucking with them.

I'm not suggesting we do nothing about terrorism. What we should do is try to prevent it, but prevention does not involve violence. 9/11 happened either entirely due to our own policies and incompetence, or it was somehow allowed to happen.(People intentionally didn't prevent it). We need to spend money on defense, not offense. We spend SOOOO fucking much money on the military. It's fucking absurd. Are we really THAT big of douchebags that everyone in the world wants to kill us so we have to make more bombs. When do we start working towards peace?

Answer this, how can we start a democracy with a false democracy? People in this country feel that this a working democracy.  We aren't doing anything to fix democracy. After two terms of bush we've had no electoral reforms, and now we get obama. We don't need to fuck with other peoples shit. Were headed for a depression, the government just threw our money away on a bailout, and you say we are the ones to fix the worlds problems through war. That makes little to no sense.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Personally I think starting wars is never justified. Initiation of violence is always done out of ignorance. A wise man knows that he has no reason to go out and pick a fight. But that is besides the point with this war. This war was absolutely fucking stupid.



What about helping a country that was attacked, then forming a ceasefire with the attacker and resuming the war after the attacker refuses to comply with the provisions of the ceasefire for 12 years?

Do you have the same opinion of the Nazis?  We attacked them before they attacked us.  They were still a threat to the entire world.    





> But that is besides the point with this war. This war was absolutely fucking stupid. The only argument you can make is war on terror. This argument is very weak as we have caused much more death in their country than they have in ours.



Tell me all of the reasons for the war that you know of.  I will help you fill in whatever you leave out.  I am asking this because your point is irrelevant to what the goals of the war are. 





> Not if you build strong communities in which gangs couldn't exist. If drugs are legal, how do gangs make their money. There are other ways, but gangs flourish because of poverty and the class system. What I'm saying is that you first get rid of that(by legalizing drugs, fixing the education system, and fixing the justice system), then you slowly phase out laws. But before we get rid of laws, we could certainly get rid of nations. Getting rid of laws is hundreds of years away, but getting rid of nations could happen with 100 years. And none of this can happen until we fix the electoral process, legalize drugs and fix education and prison systems.



Gangs in this country would be severely weakened if drugs were legalized and everything else stayed the same.  I am a major supporter of drug legalization.  However, gangs also exist where there is lawlessness.  They were all over the old West, Medievel Europe, parts of Africa, Brazil in the 1980's, and lots of other places where governments were too weak to stop them from being powerful.  When a government is removed, the fight for power is on.  That is how it works.  Humans crave power almost as much as they crave food and even more than they crave sex.  That is why peaceful anarchy, and really anarchy period, is an impossibility.  





> But let's put the idea of anarchy aside. I was just giving you my full plan, you did ask for it. Let's just talk about what should be done now, which is fixing our own democracy. President Bush, a neo conservative, won 2 times. This should obviously show that we need to reform the electoral process. At the very least we need to stop this ridiculous notion of having campaign ads on television. People should only vote if they have done some research and actually know who there voting for and why. We also really need to stop this two party bullshit. It ruins the whole idea of a democracy. Vote for people based on what they want to do, not what party their in. The two party process does no good. I suggest an end to political parties in general. It only creates more politics(bureaucracy, devil worship, call it what you will). We do not have a democracy, how the hell can we start one in a country by starting a war there?



You mean... how _did_ we do it?  By overthrowing the Hussein regime and starting a new government.  

I agree that our two party system is a frustrating pain in the ass and that both major parties suck really bad.  But things will never be perfect or close to perfect.  Revolutionizing the Middle East is not something that can be put on hold, especially forever.  We can work on both at the same time.  





> I have never been personally affected by terrorism. I know many people who have died, none from terrorism. Death is a part of life, there are many ways someone might die, but there is no reason to fear it. Terrorism happens much less often than tornadoes, though both do occur occasionally. *I'm not afraid of either of them because there is a very fucking low probabilistic chance I will die because of it.* True that someone may die from it, but that does not justify a war. The people there want to kill us because we fuck with them; change the policy of fucking with them.



I know you think there is a low chance of it.  I was asking you why.  What causes there to be such a small chance of it, in your opinion?  Remember what I said about superlarge organizations dedicated to killing masses and more masses of Americans, as many Americans as possible.  What is stopping them? 





> I'm not suggesting we do nothing about terrorism. What we should do is try to prevent it, but prevention does not involve violence. 9/11 happened either entirely due to our own policies and incompetence, or it was somehow allowed to happen.(People intentionally didn't prevent it). We need to spend money on defense, not offense. We spend SOOOO fucking much money on the military. It's fucking absurd. Are we really THAT big of douchebags that everyone in the world wants to kill us so we have to make more bombs. When do we start working towards peace?



Revolutionizing the Middle East is all about a future of peace. 





> Answer this, how can we start a democracy with a false democracy? People in this country feel that this a working democracy. We aren't doing anything to fix democracy. After two terms of bush we've had no electoral reforms, and now we get obama. We don't need to fuck with other peoples shit. Were headed for a depression, the government just threw our money away on a bailout, and you say we are the ones to fix the worlds problems through war. That makes little to no sense.



I don't consider it a false democracy.  Why do you?  

What we are doing in Iraq is for us and the rest of the world.  It's not like we can just wait and wait for Holland or France to go do it.

----------


## drewmandan

I think this says it best:

----------


## acatalephobic

My attention span is just fine thanks. You're the one giving me youtube and (of all things) Family Guy clips as a way of arguing your point. Ironic, to say the least.

Try reading a book. It takes a little more effort and thought, but you'd be surprised at what they have to offer in the way of knowledge...and there aren't any advertisements.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe war is justified. You can argue your point, and I can argue mine, but unless we're actually listening to each other...nothing good can come from it. We can both argue til we're blue in the face, but the truth is it doesn't help anything.

But in the interest of clarification, racism is only a moot point to racists. Just like religious discrimination or gender discrimination or sexual-orientation discrimination is claimed to not exist by those that aren't the ones being discriminated against. 

But its certainly real to the victims of it. I'm sick and tired of hearing Americans arrogantly claim racism doesn't exist. The rest of the world knows better. Racism and discrimination of all types (especially gender, race and religion) has existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Americans abolish slavery, to the dismay of half the country, and 50 years later they think they're perfect and nonbiased? If you believe that, you need to grow up and gain a more analytical perspective. Without it, your criticizing or advocating means nothing. 

If someone is saying that North Korea is allowed to have their nuclear weapons and oppressive government, but countries in the Middle East cannot...I'm sorry but thats blatently racist. Have you ever seen how anti-American North Korea is? If you're even allowed to take a tour there, the first thing you watch is a video stating 101 reasons why the US is evil, and every stop on the tour has to do with where the US was defeated or something of that nature. You aren't allowed to bring any music, books, or movies with you when you visit because the government there is afraid they might "Americanize" someone.

So North Korea is armed, extremely anti-American, and has a dictorial government. Why are you up in arms about so-called "Islamofascists" and not the other fascist nations around the world that hate America? *If there's no other difference besides religion, race, or geography, why is one more justified than the other?* I'm just curious, because your whole argument on that point was that one can be reasoned with and one can't. Ambiguous, at best. 

For the record, I'm not saying you are actively a racist person. But your argument is certainly passively racist. If you can't see that, then there's nothing I can say to help that.

*All I know is that America invades countries, tortures and kills people, misleads the public, has nuclear weapons, ignores the concept of national sovereignty at times, and has a government that thinks it is beyond accountability to the world and even its own citizens. It breaks these and many other unwritten rules, like LOTS of other countries do. It doesn't make it right under any circumstances, but it certainly doesn't make is less worse than other countries doing the same thing.*

*Doing shitty things to people is always wrong, but if you're going to point fingers, at least make sure your own hands are clean first.*




And just as a sidenote, I'd just like to point out that it would be really beneficial if people could get this upset about urban sprawl or pollution of water and air worldwide or the displacement of native peoples worldwide or hate crimes or poverty or classism. If people could focus on universal things that affect us all, half as much as they focus on their own countries...perhaps the human race could actually work together for a change.

 :tongue2:

----------


## StonedApe

> What about helping a country that was attacked, then forming a ceasefire with the attacker and resuming the war after the attacker refuses to comply with the provisions of the ceasefire for 12 years?
> 
> Do you have the same opinion of the Nazis?  We attacked them before they attacked us.  They were still a threat to the entire world.



No we didn't. The war was already going on in that instance and we intervened to try to end it. That's completely different from claiming that someone is a threat to you and preemptively attacking them.





> Tell me all of the reasons for the war that you know of.  I will help you fill in whatever you leave out.  I am asking this because your point is irrelevant to what the goals of the war are.



So your saying that this war isn't just an extension of the war on terror? What is it then? We have no right to start a war because we decide that we want to change a country. If you want to increase stability in a region, a war is probably not going to help. WMDs, Changing the political structure, fighting terrorism; those are the reasons I know of. None of them justify this war.





> Gangs in this country would be severely weakened if drugs were legalized and everything else stayed the same.  I am a major supporter of drug legalization.  However, gangs also exist where there is lawlessness.  They were all over the old West, Medievel Europe, parts of Africa, Brazil in the 1980's, and lots of other places where governments were too weak to stop them from being powerful.  When a government is removed, the fight for power is on.  That is how it works.  Humans crave power almost as much as they crave food and even more than they crave sex.  _That is why peaceful anarchy, and really anarchy period, is an impossibility. _



Not if you get rid of the class system. You completely ignored that, and it's the main part of the argument. But I really don't expect someone who thinks war will make the world a better place to understand the idea behind a peaceful society. 

The point is not getting rid of laws, it's fixing the way they are enforced. People need help not punishment. Getting rid of laws is a long way off, but it's not impossible. Neither is world peace.





> You mean... how _did_ we do it?  By overthrowing the Hussein regime and starting a new government.  
> 
> I agree that our two party system is a frustrating pain in the ass and that both major parties suck really bad.  But things will never be perfect or close to perfect.  Revolutionizing the Middle East is not something that can be put on hold, especially forever.  We can work on both at the same time.  
> 
> I don't consider it a false democracy.  Why do you?



So your saying things will always suck and we can't improve society, yet we should go around starting wars to attempt to perfect other peoples societies? Why does the middle east need to revolutionized, and Africa doesn't? Maybe it's because the only argument you have is the war on terror.

There is not a democracy in the middle east. There isn't even one in this country. It is a false democracy because the people make their decisions based on propaganda, and they aren't even given good options. The president is the highest office, correct? Bush won twice, when in a functioning democracy he would never had had a chance in the primary. Good candidates are pushed aside and weak politicians take office. Elections need to be about the issues, not political correctness and media coverage.

The joke of a government we've established in the middle east is not a democracy, stop kidding yourself. Democracy is a hard thing to create.






> I know you think there is a low chance of it.  I was asking you why.  What causes there to be such a small chance of it, in your opinion?  Remember what I said about superlarge organizations dedicated to killing masses and more masses of Americans, as many Americans as possible.  What is stopping them?



Probability makes me think that there is a low chance. Seriously, if terrorist start making attacks more than once every 7 years, maybe I'd start to worry a little, but come on man. What stops them is precautionary tactics, not war. This war has done nothing to stop them.

It's not just that I think there is a low chance, there is a low chance. When compared to most causes of death, terrorism is quite low on the list. Why has terrorism all of the sudden become so threatening? Before 9-11, it wasn't, and truly, it still isn't. People are just more aware of it now and are scared because we use scare tactics in politics constantly these days.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No we didn't. The war was already going on in that instance and we intervened to try to end it. That's completely different from claiming that someone is a threat to you and preemptively attacking them.



Yes, we rescued Kuwait.  Then we justifiably continued the war for MANY reasons.  





> So your saying that this war isn't just an extension of the war on terror? What is it then? We have no right to start a war because we decide that we want to change a country. If you want to increase stability in a region, a war is probably not going to help. WMDs, Changing the political structure, fighting terrorism; those are the reasons I know of. None of them justify this war.



The big picture of all of them together justifies the war.  





> Not if you get rid of the class system. You completely ignored that, and it's the main part of the argument. But I really don't expect someone who thinks war will make the world a better place to understand the idea behind a peaceful society.



The Middle East is not a peaceful society in most places.  We are trying to change that.  Getting rid of the class system has been a failure every time and even completely destroyed nations.  It is a terrible idea.  Competition is what makes people work hard enough to create a good economy for all.  Nothing else works.  

You keep talking about having a peaceful society, but you have no good suggestions for how to create one.  I want a peaceful society everywhere, and my suggestions of democracy and capitalism are tried, tested, and true. 





> The point is not getting rid of laws, it's fixing the way they are enforced. People need help not punishment. Getting rid of laws is a long way off, but it's not impossible. Neither is world peace.



Punishment is what deters the evil from acting out their evil.  I bet you don't even speed if you know a cop is watching you.  Why might that be?  

I think the world can be greatly improved, but saying we can have world peace is like saying lions can stop eating gazelles.  It is not realistic.  Human nature is what it is.  





> So your saying things will always suck and we can't improve society, yet we should go around starting wars to attempt to perfect other peoples societies? Why does the middle east need to revolutionized, and Africa doesn't? Maybe it's because the only argument you have is the war on terror.



Of course I think we can improve society.  How many times do I need to say that?  It is exactly the point of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Africa needs to be improved greatly too, but they are not producing terrorists by the gazillions. 





> There is not a democracy in the middle east. There isn't even one in this country. It is a false democracy because the people make their decisions based on propaganda, and they aren't even given good options. The president is the highest office, correct? Bush won twice, when in a functioning democracy he would never had had a chance in the primary. Good candidates are pushed aside and weak politicians take office. Elections need to be about the issues, not political correctness and media coverage.



We need improvements, but we are still a democratic republic.  We do have the power to vote people out of office and put new people in, as do Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to us. 





> Probability makes me think that there is a low chance. Seriously, if terrorist start making attacks more than once every 7 years, maybe I'd start to worry a little, but come on man. What stops them is precautionary tactics, not war. This war has done nothing to stop them.
> 
> It's not just that I think there is a low chance, there is a low chance. When compared to most causes of death, terrorism is quite low on the list. Why has terrorism all of the sudden become so threatening? Before 9-11, it wasn't, and truly, it still isn't. People are just more aware of it now and are scared because we use scare tactics in politics constantly these days.



There is a low chance because our government is doing a Hell of a good job creating a low chance.  The 9/11 attacks happened because terrorists thought we would submit to their demands and change our policies in their favor if they committed the attacks.  Instead, we overthrew two terrorist governments.  That is the proper response to terrorism.  Our wars in the Middle East are great for about 10 other reasons and together form a big picture that amounts to major justification.

----------


## Universal Mind

> My attention span is just fine thanks. You're the one giving me youtube and (of all things) Family Guy clips as a way of arguing your point. Ironic, to say the least.
> 
> Try reading a book. It takes a little more effort and thought, but you'd be surprised at what they have to offer in the way of knowledge...and there aren't any advertisements.
> 
> All I'm saying is that I don't believe war is justified. You can argue your point, and I can argue mine, but unless we're actually listening to each other...nothing good can come from it. We can both argue til we're blue in the face, but the truth is it doesn't help anything.
> 
> But in the interest of clarification, racism is only a moot point to racists. Just like religious discrimination or gender discrimination or sexual-orientation discrimination is claimed to not exist by those that aren't the ones being discriminated against. 
> 
> But its certainly real to the victims of it. I'm sick and tired of hearing Americans arrogantly claim racism doesn't exist. The rest of the world knows better. Racism and discrimination of all types (especially gender, race and religion) has existed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Americans abolish slavery, to the dismay of half the country, and 50 years later they think they're perfect and nonbiased? If you believe that, you need to grow up and gain a more analytical perspective. Without it, your criticizing or advocating means nothing. 
> ...



You are talking to two different people and thinking we are the same person.  

North Korea and China have both been reasoned with.  Al Qaeda and insurgent terrorists have not been and cannot be.  If you think race has anything to do with any of that, then you are a racist.  Islamofascists seek death.  Other fascists wish to avoid it.  That is the big difference.  Learn the facts.

Of course other problems exist.  No kidding.  That does not mean we should ignore the insane threat from masses of nut jobs who want to commit murder-suicides and kill masses of Americans and other Westerners, including YOU.

----------


## StonedApe

> Yes, we rescued Kuwait.  Then we justifiably continued the war for MANY reasons.  
> 
> The big picture of all of them together justifies the war.



Can you give me one specific reason other than changing the middle east and fighting terror? I don't see those 2 things as being enough to justify war.





> The Middle East is not a peaceful society in most places.  We are trying to change that.  Getting rid of the class system has been a failure every time and even completely destroyed nations.  It is a terrible idea.  *Competition is what makes people work hard enough to create a good economy for all.*  Nothing else works.



Bullshit.
Give me one example of a classless society. It's never been tried. If your talking about communism or something socialist, I'm suggesting something entirely different. 





> You keep talking about having a peaceful society, but you have no good suggestions for how to create one.  I want a peaceful society everywhere, and my suggestions of democracy and capitalism are tried, tested, and true.



Your suggestion is war, get your argument straight. I have not once said anything against democracy or capitalism; only that we need to fix those things in this country. I suggest legalizing drugs, fixing justice and education, and fixing the electoral process. Are you saying these are bad suggestions?





> Punishment is what deters the evil from acting out their evil.  I bet you don't even speed if you know a cop is watching you.  Why might that be?



I don't speed because driving recklessly is ignorant. Why exactly would people decide to drive recklessly just because there isn't a cop around? 





> I think the world can be greatly improved, but saying we can have world peace is like saying lions can stop eating gazelles.  It is not realistic.  Human nature is what it is.



So man must always act like an animal? He cannot think consciously?





> Of course I think we can improve society.  How many times do I need to say that?  It is exactly the point of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Africa needs to be improved greatly too, but they are not producing terrorists by the gazillions.



You are deeply mistaken in the number of terrorists there are. Please stop exaggerating. You make it out as if the majority of Muslims are terrorists.

War is not a good way to improve things.






> We need improvements, but we are still a democratic republic.  We do have the *power to vote people out of office* and put new people in, as do Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to us.



Why is bush still in office then? Many people have been trying to get him out for half his presidency. He taps phone lines and starts an unjust war, yet it was easier to get Clinton impeached for getting a blowjob. we couldn't even get the process started for bush.

We have a lot of improvement that we could easily make. Lets do those at least before we go and do something as drastic as a war.





> There is a low chance because our government is doing a Hell of a good job creating a low chance.  The 9/11 attacks happened because terrorists thought we would submit to their demands and change our policies in their favor if they committed the attacks.  Instead, we overthrew two terrorist governments.  That is the proper response to terrorism.  Our wars in the Middle East are great for about 10 other reasons and together form a big picture that amounts to major justification.



There are no terrorist governments. What are you talking about? Please stop fudging lines just because you don't trust the middle east.

Vengeance is the proper response? We should create more violence to make up for the violence committed against us? Maybe you could try for just one second to see how these terrorists feel. They don't want us fucking with their country, so maybe we shouldn't be. We put Saddam in power. Maybe we should just stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.

There never was/is a high chance of terrorism. It's just something that doesn't happen. Most people do not want to kill you. If you are afraid of terrorist you are being paranoid. We can definitely do things to prevent it, but war in the middle east is not gonna stop them from producing terrorists. Lets stick with things that work, like investigating and infiltrating terrorist agencies.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Can you give me one specific reason other than changing the middle east and fighting terror? I don't see those 2 things as being enough to justify war.



Those are huge.  The "fighting terror" part comes in many subparts.  We are mainly concerned with preventing a future of WMD terrorism, possibly nuclear terrorism.  It could literally end all life on Earth.  The Middle East must be transformed.  





> Bullshit.
> Give me one example of a classless society. It's never been tried. If your talking about communism or something socialist, I'm suggesting something entirely different.



Communism and socialism have both been attempts at classless society.  They are both miserable failures.  

What do you suggest?  





> Your suggestion is war, get your argument straight. I have not once said anything against democracy or capitalism; only that we need to fix those things in this country. I suggest legalizing drugs, fixing justice and education, and fixing the electoral process. Are you saying these are bad suggestions?



Are you sure you are reading my posts?  I said I agree with your suggestions.  But I also said we should fix the Middle East.  What they do there can and has affected us greatly.  





> I don't speed because driving recklessly is ignorant. Why exactly would people decide to drive recklessly just because there isn't a cop around?



Uh, yeah.  You haven't noticed that yet?  





> So man must always act like an animal? He cannot think consciously?



I did not say he must.  I said he will.  Only biological evolution can get rid of man's sociopathic strive toward power, and that will probably never happen.  





> You are deeply mistaken in the number of terrorists there are. Please stop exaggerating. You make it out as if the majority of Muslims are terrorists.



No, the large networks do exist.  You might have heard of a few of them.  But if you think I am saying the majority of Muslims are terrorists, you are seeing things.  





> War is not a good way to improve things.



How else should the Nazis have been handled?  How else should the U.S. have gotten its independence?  How else could slavery have been ended in the U.S.?  What else could have stopped the Confederacy from continuing to be a separate country?  How else can nations be liberated?   





> Why is bush still in office then? Many people have been trying to get him out for half his presidency. He taps phone lines and starts an unjust war, yet it was easier to get Clinton impeached for getting a blowjob. we couldn't even get the process started for bush.



Not enough people want Bush out of office.  Do you know how Arnold Schwarzanaegger got into office in California? 

Clinton was impeached for perjury.  





> We have a lot of improvement that we could easily make. Lets do those at least before we go and do something as drastic as a war.



We can't put the Middle East on hold while waiting for the impossible situation of our own system becoming perfect.  





> There are no terrorist governments. What are you talking about? Please stop fudging lines just because you don't trust the middle east.



The Taliban was in fact a terrorist government.  The Hussein regime was in fact a terrorist government.  Iran in fact has a terrorist government.  Syria is in fact has a terrorist government.  The PLO is in fact a terrorist government.  You have a lot to learn.  





> Vengeance is the proper response? We should create more violence to make up for the violence committed against us? Maybe you could try for just one second to see how these terrorists feel. They don't want us fucking with their country, so maybe we shouldn't be. We put Saddam in power. Maybe we should just stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.



I didn't say anything about vengeance being the proper response or anything suggesting that our violence is supposed to make up for other violence.  However, that is exactly how the terrorists think.  They even admit it.  The terrorists are not justified in what they do.  They just blow shit up and kill innocent people because they are angry.  Your message about the irrationality of mindless violence needs to be directed at the terrorists.  Start a thread on it.  I bet you don't.   ::wink:: 





> There never was/is a high chance of terrorism. It's just something that doesn't happen. Most people do not want to kill you. If you are afraid of terrorist you are being paranoid. We can definitely do things to prevent it, but war in the middle east is not gonna stop them from producing terrorists. Lets stick with things that work, like investigating and infiltrating terrorist agencies.



So, you think our government is doing an excellent job of preventing the terrorist organizations from killing us?  I do too.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Its about time something positive was posted here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aanrkKmefs&NR=1

How about we listen to the voices....of the children?

----------


## drewmandan

> Its about time something positive was posted here.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aanrkKmefs&NR=1
> 
> How about we listen to the voices....of the children?



Filmed in 2003. Nice try.

----------


## Xaqaria

> So, you think our government is doing an excellent job of preventing the terrorist organizations from killing us?  I do too.







> Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
> Lisa Simpson: Thats specious reasoning, Dad.
> Homer: Thank you, dear.
> Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
> Homer: Oh, how does it work?
> Lisa: It doesnt work.
> Homer: Uh-huh.
> Lisa: Its just a stupid rock.
> Homer: Uh-huh.
> ...



woah; deja-vu.

----------


## Universal Mind

> woah; deja-vu.



So, there are no massive terrorist organizations dedicated to killing masses of Americans?  Saying there are is like saying there are bears trying to come our way in large numbers?  Or is is that saying there are is correct but the terrorists _just happen_ to not be committing terrorist attacks in the U.S.?  Help me understand this.  

If you believe the obsessive terrorists are out there in large numbers with blood thirst for large populations of Americans, tell me what is stopping them.

----------


## drewmandan

UM, if terrorists did attack in the US, you would use that to justify Iraq anyway.

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM, if terrorists did attack in the US, you would use that to justify Iraq anyway.



But if a few of our cities got knocked out, I would say the Iraq war is a failure.

----------

