|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:49 PM |
|
|
I will e-mail Crossfire and Wolf Blitzer on CNN, telling them about our "little" debate here. Maybe they will show some of our posts on TV. It is a longshot.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:54 PM |
|
|
That's a great idea. I'll check back in later -- let us know if you hear anything...
REALLY GOTTA GO
talk at ya soon
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:54 PM |
|
|
ummm...PH, the czechs have decided not to support an attack..the govermnet that is.
But here is a small food for thought...the ONLY country in the WORLD where over 50% of the popluation supports the war is no other that 'the great imperialisticly, capitalisticly corrupted, can't teel nazis from people, states of america'
here the support is 25%, in czech republic 12%, germany 15%,france 13% ect.ect. I see that the US doesn't see that thare arwe MILLIONs of people arrround the world (INCLUDING THE US) protesting in 10 and 100 thousands(if not millions) agains this supid pointless war?!
NO the US are law only to themselves. Qiute interesting that adolf bush doesn't see this.
look go there start a war but when it starts to last over 3 moths and you have more and more body-bags comming home each day and protests breaking out and ur popularity dropping under 30% then you will understand this.
where is this headed to? who is next after iraq? South Korea, Iran? France, Germany? the americans don't care.
Well its a country where you can wrap ur house in a nazi flag but when u wrtie an article in the NEw york times agains the goverment and the war u get fired for "lack of space" and "needing to save money"...
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 10:01 PM |
|
|
By the way, FireOfTruth, I do not agree with everything you say, but share some of your frustrations and do intend to look up your reference. I will furthermore not pass any judgment on its value until I've seen it and can then assess the reliability of its sources.
Ahem Wolfman. 
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 11:21 PM |
|
|
a new hero arising
Wolfman the Informed
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted March 19, 2003 11:59 PM |
|
|
Better believe it!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 01:36 AM |
|
|
Lets see:
Point 1 - Dargon! Please not Fire's comments, THAT is an example of anti-american comments for the sake of it, and please don't say I'm THAT bad!
Quote:
Where did you get that list by the way??? I want a peek at your cheat sheet baby....
Daily Mirror for today gave a list of them all, admitedly DM is an extremely anti-war paper, but the list is the one released by the american government I assume. In reference to this:
Quote:
ummm...PH, the czechs have decided not to support an attack..the govermnet that is.
Then someone needs to inform the Bush administration as they think they're backing the war. One must be wrong you'd assume.
Wolfie:
Quote:
We also gave Iran the same help, and that is why Iraq hates us so much
If you don't mind me saying so, using "we sold to both fairly" is hardly a justification for selling someone in the middle of a bloody war chemical weapons is it really? If we're gonna criticise Iraq for showing the motive of selling chemical weapons to terrorists, you have to question the motives behind selling said technology and motives to selling them to those countries in the first place really (in which of course we can include Britain and France).
Quote:
Yes we did, because we were against the Soviets for so long.
Please, give me a break, you clamour for action to be taken against nations supporting terrorism against countries and then when someone points to the fact that you did the same thing 20 years ago you justify it by saying you had enemies to fight? Has it not occured to you that argument could be used by Hussain if it's a legitimate excuse?
Quote:
Of course we are attacking a weaker country! How could we not be? We are the worlds' only superpower!
Superpower or not, there's nations not even america could beat in a conventional war, China namely.
Quote:
Actually, right after Pres. Bush's speech and ultimatum on Monday, the polls went up. about 70% are for a war if Saddam does not leave the country.
As a side note here, I don't doubt there's support for the move in the US, but I also doubt polls as they can be fixed by those with motive and are highly subjective, and not always right. Personally it would have been nice to have something akin to a refferendum to solve the issue once and for all.
Quote:
It doesn't need to go through the UN!
As I said before, if we use UN as justification for war repeatedly then we really should be going through them. Nations of all sides picking and choosing which part of the UN you pay attention to is one garunteed way to ensure that the UN is doomed.
Quote:
Does the US attack its neighbors, and use poison gasses on its own people
No, but you do attack small nations and use chemical weapons *cough* agent orange *cough* I'm still trying to work out exactly why it's better to use chemical weapons on your enemies as opposed to your own people, or indeed if there should be a distinction made.
Quote:
If you have seen the pictures of the Kurdish cities after Saddam gassed them I think you would be more reasonable.
Ah ha! I see, Iraq gasses them and gets reprimanded, Turkey shoots them and moves them off land for dams and gets invited into the EU.... Clearly it's more civilised to shoot and beat someone to death than gas them.
Quote:
I think I am plenty informed, and I don't need to read some liberal book that is trying to change my opinion. My eyes are open to the "truth"!
Then surely it won't hurt to read it? I've read anti-semetic literature claiming the holocaust was a fraud, doesn't mean I think it was, but the "evidence"* they offered sure proved interesting to read.
Quote:
I will e-mail Crossfire and Wolf Blitzer on CNN, telling them about our "little" debate here. Maybe they will show some of our posts on TV. It is a longshot.
EEK! me on CNN? Wait a sec I need to brush my hair!  not a bad idea though
*The evidence I mentioned is highly debatable but interesting nonetheless, somewhere around here I have a link to a 10 page article online about the holocaust "fraud". I could dig it up if anyone wanted a look at it
Fire: Please give the yanks a break, not even Bush is that bad, just misguided...... Your comments show a complete mistrust for Bush's motives and aims here. You might have some points there, but your presentation is sorely lacking I'm afraid.
Quote:
where is this headed to? who is next after iraq? South Korea, Iran? France, Germany?
Not with british support they won't. Think about how many rebellions Blair would face before then, he'd be long gone before he could drag us off to another unpopular and non UN backed conflict.
And 1 point of my own:
Channel 4 news here quoted senior american defence officials (sorry they never mentioned a name) as talking of a 90 day committment of troops to Iraq followed by a period of reconstruction under non-millitary control and then power being returned to the Iraquis. Analysts' estimates range from 90 days to 4 years as to the time needed for troops.
But if 90 days is the true legnth of committment of US troops to Iraq then this war will prove pointless entirely. Kossovo has seen considerable ethnic cleansing going on by the muslim population since 1999, and that's with constant Nato presence, if Bush is expecting to arrive, then leave soon after then all we will have been likely to achieve is a change of who's doing the killing. Popular though a short committment may be, the sensible, longer route would be better......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 02:11 AM |
|
|
Oh and one other point I forgot to mention about the rebuilding of Iraq.
The government that will take over in phase 3 of the US plan for Iraq. Will this be chosen or elected by the people? If elected and, given some iraquis are kinda anti-western, what will america do if the Iraqui's elect someone who is anti west? Install a regime? Allow him to take power because he's the chosen representative? Something tells me it would be unlikely that having spent a lot of time and money on this project there's no way in hell Bush will allow an another anti-western leader to be in charge, but if he's elected fairly will he accept it?
Should be of interest to see what happens in that event, whether they will install a regime "for the good of the people" or whether they will just leave after the end of phase three and watch Iraq return to it's former anti-west stand, but this time without the dictatorship.....
It could happen, I'm not saying it will, but if it does Bush is going to have to make yet another tough decision. Install a leader (therefore denying democracy) or allow democracy (and loose control over the country)/
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted March 20, 2003 03:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's deadline for President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq passed Wednesday night without any sign the Iraqi leader was prepared to accept exile over a U.S.-led military attack.
Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, said allied forces were prepared to carry out an "unprecedented" campaign: "If we go, the plans we have are unlike anything anyone has ever seen before."
Senior U.S. officials said Bush might wait before giving orders to attack if that's what the commanders want him to do; one official said Bush has no problem with letting the Iraqi military "stare up at the sky for a little bit."
About a dozen U.S. and coalition warplanes dropped precision munitions on nearly a dozen Iraqi artillery pieces in the southern no-fly zone that could have been in range of American troops poised to invade southern Iraq, Pentagon officials told CNN.
Some of the artillery was located on the Al Faw peninsula, between Basra and Iraq's Persian Gulf coast. Another strike targeted sites northwest of Iraq's border with Kuwait.
U.S. planes had been conducting around-the-clock reconnaissance of the artillery, and its forces had been expected to strike those targets out of concern coalition ground forces could be in range. There also had been concern some of the artillery could be capable of using chemical munitions.
Warplanes also struck Iraqi cable repeater sites and command and control sites. In addition, at least one Al Ababil surface-to-surface missile launcher was struck.
When Bush's ultimatum expired at 8 p.m. ET Wednesday, virtually the brightest moon of the month shown over Iraq throughout the night, which is not considered ideal for the U.S. military, which "owns the night."
In Kuwait, hundreds of military vehicles have been spotted heading north toward the Iraqi frontier.
Witnesses described a 16-mile (26-kilometer) stretch of road filled with tanks, armored personnel carriers, fuel trucks and other vehicles.
So they attacked.
____________
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
posted March 20, 2003 04:57 AM |
|
|
HEY WOLFMAN YOU DONT KNOW SQUAT
WOLFMAN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR OPINION ABOUT ANYTHING I DONT CARE BUT I SERVED ON BOARD THE USS. ENTERPRISE CVN-65 ON THE 1998 WINTER CRUISE AND 2000 SUMMER CRUISE AND NO I DONT NEED TO BE A 4 STAR ADMIRAL TO KNOW THAT WE JUST BOMBED IRAQ WHY I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I WORKED AS AN AO WHICH IS AN AVIATION ORDNANCEMAN SO I HELP LOAD MISSILES AND BOMBS ON AIRCRAFT MOSTLY F-18'S AND F-14'S PLUS THE CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP TOLD US AFTER BOMBING THEM AND MY SUPERVISORS HAVE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES WHY ARE WE LOADING CERTAIN BOMBS AND MISSILES ON AIRCRAFT THE MILITARY IS STUPID THEY ARE NOT AS HUSH HUSH AS YOU THINK SO THERE IT IS I WAS AN E-4 BACK THEN PETTY OFFICER THIRD CLASS AND I WORKED ON THE FLIGHT DECK AND HANGER BAY ON THE SHIP AGAIN PUSHING BOMBS AND MISSILES AND GIVING THEM TO THE SQUADRONS SO THEY CAN LOAD THEM ON THEIR AIRCRAFTS SO PLEASE DONT TELL ME I DONT KNOW ANYTHING BECAUSE WHEN YOU ARE IN A POSITION TO HANDLE THE SHIPS MISSILES AND BOMBS YOU NEED TO BE STUPID OR IGNORANT IF YOU SEE MISSILES BEING LOADED ON AIRCRAFT AND PLANES COMING BACK WITHOUT THEM BECAUSE ON THE RECORD YOU NEED TO PUT THAT IT WAS USED ON INVENTORY SO WOLFMAN TALK TO ME WHEN YOU KNOW SOMETHING YOU ARE NO HERO JUST AN IGNORANT AND ARROGANT FOOL. DOES BEING THE WORLDS ONLY SUPERPOWER GIVES US THE RIGHT TO ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES WE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED FROM THIS.THE NEWS DONT KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT PLANS FOOL DO YOU THINK THAT IF THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ PICK ANOTHER DICTATOR I REALLY DOUBT THE U.S. IS GOING TO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT THE OIL RESERVES IN THEIR POWER. THINK ABOUT IT I KNOW ITS HARD FOR YOU THOUGH.OPEN YOUR EYES THE PRESIDENT IS NOT LOOKING OUT FOR THE PEOPLE HE IS LOOKING OUT FOR AMERICAN INTERESTS WHICH ARE MONEY IN WAR. DO YOU THINK WAR IS CHEAP ESPECIALLY IN THE U.S. ECONOMY WE NEED MONEY SO IF WE COULD GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT. IT WOULDNT BE A WASTE OF TIME DONT YOU THINK. HAVE YOU ALREADY FORGOT THE MILITARY PERSONNEL THAT CAME BACK SICK FROM DESERT STORM THEY CAME BACK SICK BECAUSE THE U.S. TESTED ON THEM WITH CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS. ARE YOU THAT IGNORANT WOLFMAN. AND YES THE U.S. HAS ATTACKED ITS NEIGHBORS AND OTHER AMERICAN CITIZENS WITH NUCLEAR TESTS ACROSS LARGE TRACTS OF THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTH PACIFIC AS MANY AS 458,000 U.S. SOLDIERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE PROGRAM ARE DYING OF CANCER. THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THEY DONT CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE WAR WOLFBOY OR HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH PLEASE TELL ME I WOULD BE GLAD TO EXPLAIN WHY THE GOVERNMENT HAS A MILITARIST ATTITUDE. OK TAKE CARE WOLFBOY BECAUSE YOU NEED TO GROW UP BYE
____________
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 05:03 AM |
|
|
HEY PEACEMAKER
YOU ASK WHER I AM FROM AND I RESPOND I LIVE IN DENVER IT HAS BEEN SNOWING HARD TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY THEY HAVE CLOSED I-70 AND I-25 SO WE GOT TO STAY HOME WATCHING TV AND DOING MY WORK AT HOME. WELL HOPE TO HEAR FROM YOU TAKE CARE BYE
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 05:17 AM |
|
|
PH -- touche!!!! That was a good one!!! If it weren't so blinkin ironically true it would be even funnier.
Say, FireOfTruth, sounds like we're snowed in here together!!! Good luck to us all getting anywhere tomorrow morning (It's still snowing over here in Lakewood)
Wolfman, FOT, before you two start going after one another again, let me remind you two to play nice. I don't want to have to send you both to your corners...
FOT, also it really feels like somebody is shouting when they type in all caps. This is an etiquette request buddy.
IVY -- What do you think? Does this mean we have to change the name of this thread now?
TAKE CARE & good luck tomorrow morning. Be careful out there!
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Laelth
Famous Hero
Laelth rhymes with stealth.
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 06:53 AM |
|
Edited By: Laelth on 24 Mar 2003
|
OK. Let me begin by saying that I am opposed to the invasion of Iraq and I question the President's motives in pursuing this war. I think that the war has more to do with getting him re-elected in 2004 than it does with protecting America or her allies.
However, let me also say that I question the motives of France, Germany, and Russia in opposing this war. All three of these countries have significant trading partnerships with Iraq that depend on Saddam Hussein's staying in power. Once Saddam is gone, those contracts will go too. In fact, capitalists in the US are already lining up to provide the new "puppet" that gets installed with all the military and industrial hardware he needs to run a good totalitarian regieme. The likelihood of this war producing a "democracy" in Iraq is negligible. France, Germany, and Russia will lose industrial contracts, and the US will gain them. That, more than anything else (IMHO), explains their resistance to this war. That fact doesn't make the war "just" or "right" in any way, but it lessens the credibility of nations who oppose this war when it's clear that they profit from Saddam's remaining in power.
Having made that argument, though, I also want to offer an explanation for why some people feel this war must be fought. What the hawks in Bush's administration fear (Paul Wolfowitz, in particular) is a powerful, unified middle-eastern state. Such a state could control world oil prices and effectively blackmail the industrialized world. If Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait, many believe he intended to then turn on Saudi Arabia. Were he allowed to mold these three countries into a single state, he (alone) would control 40% of the world's oil supply ... and he could have done it had not the 1991 coalition stepped in and stopped him. Had Saddam formed such a state, he could use its power to influence much of the Islamic world (over 1 billion people and over 60% of the world's oil reserves). Such a state would wipe Israel, for example, off the map. Such a state would control world oil prices and could cripple the industrialized world if it so chose. The industrilaized world, therefore, could not allow such a state to be created.
"But that was then, and this is now," you say. "Saddam is no longer a threat." True, but Saddam is still very popular in the Middle East. He represents the hope (of millions of people) that they can rise out of poverty and squallor, become powerful and independent, and gain some degree of autonomy and respect in the world community. And WE, the industrialized West (inculding Japan) don't want that. We want cheap oil. We want to control world oil prices. We do so by supporting little puppet regiemes. Were a strong, unified middle-eastern state to arise, we'd lose that power, and we can't risk that. So, in destroying Saddam the US and the UK hope to destroy forever the hope for a strong, unified middle-east. Saddam isn't the problem. It's what he represents to the people of the Islamic world that must be destroyed.
That, my friends, is the cold, hard truth behind this war. For better or for worse ...
-Laelth
____________
Alan P. Taylor, Attorney at Law, LLC
|
|
silx87
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 12:13 PM |
|
|
Well,I have nothin else to say.
It has begun!I wish ya'll good luck!
I'm watchin this special news report right now.
This Estonian Vietnam war veteran is talkin bout what he thinks of the war and American army.
Okay,good luck ya'll ppl!I'm just glad this war doesn't come this far north!I should be safe here.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 03:29 PM |
|
|
FOT, please take off the caps lock. I'm not going to change your mind, so I'm not going to pick your post apart like I did the last one.
Peacemaker, Rush Limbaugh is on today at 10:00 - 1:00 Mountain Time if you want to listen in. Did I play nice enough?
And yes, it has started...
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 03:55 PM |
|
|
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Iraq fired Scud missiles at Kuwait on Thursday, officials said, sending U.S. troops scrambling into chemical protective suits and setting air raid sirens blaring in Kuwait City.
A Kuwaiti defense ministry spokesman said a U.S. Patriot anti-missile defense battery brought down two Iraqi Scuds, intercepting one with three Patriot missiles and the other with a single Patriot.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 04:50 PM |
|
|
LOL!!!!!
You're a peach, Wolfman. I knew there was a cuddly kitten under there somewhere!!!
As you know I am snowed in here in Denver, but the sun came out this a.m. and I am now needing to get around and get a few things done, because I'm leaving town for a week in a couple of days. When I get back we'll try this Rush thing. I'm frankly a little intimidated though to tell you the truth; lawyer or not, I do not think quickly on my feet and do much better when I have time to think about what I'm saying and write it down...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 07:29 PM |
|
|
Laelth, your post was admirably stated. Very well-balanced commentary. Thanks for bringing such quality to this conversation.
By the way, just one point in response to PH's example of how un-innocent the U.S. is in the use of bio-chemical warfare. One of the first uses of it was by the United States in selling/giving small pox-infested blankets to us natives a couple hundred years ago, killing hundreds of thousands. I would hazard a guess that it's where the idea originated.
Yes, I know. That was two hundred years ago. So I won't talk about forced sterilization of Native American women as recently as the last fifteen years, etc. etc.....
My intent here is not simply to mindlessly attack the U.S. for the sake of it. I love this country and I love living here and I get to sit down and say whatever I want on the net because of our democracy. None of us should ever forget that, and I haven't.
But gentlemen, we will never get anywhere as long as we continue to claim innocence where it just ain't so. Granted, the U.S. isn't necessarily as bad as some make it out to be. But our own failure to acknowledge our mistakes continues to fuel this hatred of us, and our chronically turning a blind eye to our own government's ill acts in large part allows this sort of thing to continue.
Everybody, this is a must-read:
American Holocaust by David Stannard.
Sorry to get off-topic.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 07:49 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 20 Mar 2003
|
And now I can only hope that I've been wrong this whole time and the decision made by Messrs. Bush and Blair is the correct one.
I do want to say a few things, though. First, before you condemn the Americans who support the war, remember the context. I, personally do not think that the biological and chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein posseses pose a direct threat to americans. However, when I chose to oppose the war I had to do so with the knowledge that if I'm wrong and these weapons do find their way into a terror attack, there's a good chance that I'm dead, my girlfriend is dead, my brother is dead, my friends and coworkers are dead. I live in New York. Dead center in Manhattan. Let's face it, we all know where chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be used if terrorists ever got their hands on them. If you live in Europe (except possibly the UK) and you're wrong about this, the snow hits the fan half way around the world. If I'm wrong, the snow hits the fan outside my front door. I think it's perfectly understandable if the American population as a whole has a lower threat threshold that they consider war justifiable at. In many ways, the number of Americans who oppose the war despite this is more a credit to the US than the number that support the war is evidence of mixed up values.
For the record, though, New York City did pass a resolution opposing the war.
Also, be careful of viewing the world in the same terms as George W. Bush albeit in mirror image terms. This is not a case of Good and true on one side and Evil and false on the other. At best it's two selfish sides squabbling over how to deal with an incredibly bad situation. Just because Bush and Blair are wrong it does not mean that Saddam Hussein is right. It also doesn't mean that Jacque Chirac is right. If the US has bullied or bribed nations into being in the "coalition of the willing" than statements about witholding EU membership are bullying and bribing nations into the supporting the French position. If the US is after Iraq's oil, than so are France and Russia. If they're opposing the war than I have to be at least partially on their side, but that doesn't mean I'm particulalry happy about who it is that I'm agreeing with. To the best I can tell, Germany is the only nation acting in anything resembling a principled manner in this whole situation.
Also, bear in mind that this was not a choice between war and complete peace. Saddam Hussein has only been contained for the past decade or so by a constant US and British presence in Saudi Arabia and other nearby nations. This has been a long standing source of friction between Islamic fundamentalists and the west and is one of Osama Bin Laden's stated motivations for his terrorist actions. The options were a. leave entirely, b. continue that presence indefinitely, c. war. I think it's naive to think that in the event of option "a." Saddam Hussein would not start another war or crack down on the Kurds again, given his history. That leaves b and c, neither of which are good options. I think b was the lesser of two evils, but I don't think that means b is a good option.
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 20, 2003 07:49 PM |
|
|
Wolfman -- I'm a bonehead. I went out, and actually got back into my garage again, but now cannot find the radio station. Where's the program?????
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
