2018-06-19, 13:41 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
  Print  
Author Topic: Good News about the War (Sometimes things just go right)  (Read 15779 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8384

WWW
« on: 2003-03-22, 04:40 »

As divisive as this issue is, we cannot deny the fact that it's happening, and I felt I would post in all seriousness some of the best news I've heard so far:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar21.html

That's 8,000 lives that will be spared, not counting casualties on the coalition side that would occur if they had chosen to fight it out.  That is good news indeed!  Slipgate - Smile
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Atom235
 
Pain Elemental
****
Posts: 84

« Reply #1 on: 2003-03-22, 18:44 »

That's good news indeed. If more ppl will surrender, it will mean less war -> less material damage -> less casulties.  Slipgate - Smile
« Last Edit: 2003-03-22, 18:47 by Atom235 » Logged
Moshman
 
Beta Tester
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 615

Yarg!

« Reply #2 on: 2003-03-23, 01:01 »

We are definatly on the winning side. I pray every day for God to protect our troops, they need our prayers!
Logged

pepe
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 103

« Reply #3 on: 2003-03-23, 03:29 »

is it only propaganda if the other side reports it?



until i have a non-biased source stating the samt hing ill considder it to be less the belivable
Logged
Demonwench
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 270

« Reply #4 on: 2003-03-23, 07:44 »

I'm glad that things are going so well for us.  But I am much saddened as well.  Watching the missles hit the palace was an awesome sight, but still, unnecessary.  I mean this whole war could have been avoided if Sadam actually stuck to the UN's orders.  

I have to wonder what is Sadam getting out of this?  One little middle eastern country versus the US.  I'm not saying we're all powerful or anything but does anyone else think this is stupid?  We are going to end up rounding up his regime and blast his country.  It may take more time than was originally thought but it will happen?  So what the piss is going through Sadam's mind??  Why is he doing this?  That is what I don't understand.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8384

WWW
« Reply #5 on: 2003-03-23, 09:53 »

Maybe he thought the US was bluffing.  After all, there were all the protests, France, Germany, Russia, and China all were opposed to military action, and this all emboldened him.  He did his best to take advantage of this division.  He delayed and stalled, giving tidbits to the weapons inspectors.  Blix was out there saying "See, the inspections are making progress" when progress meant a missile here, a shell there, while Saddam was keeping most of all of his illegal weapons - like Scud missiles that have since been launched and thankfully blown out of the sky for the most part that he "didn't have".  Perhaps he thought the US would lose its resolve and back down in the face of growing opposition.  In his mind HE won the Gulf War in 91 because he was left in power and the US backed out of Iraq under UN mandate.  He put down the Iraqi uprising since the US and other allies failed to back it at the time.  UN resolution after UN resolution always resulted in nothing being done, he was exporting his oil and importing weapons even though it was illegal.  All of that probably led him to believe he was untouchable.  If not, then perhaps he thought he could weather this war, or maybe he's of the mind that he either keeps it all, or goes down fighting.  Saddam is a very clever man and very ruthless.  This man has lived with power and paranoia for so long, who knows what it has done to his mind.  Although, if the latest intelligence is correct, he was seriously wounded in the initial attack, however they think he did survive but one of his sons may not have.  I think he's scared, shocked, and overwhelmed at just how quickly hell was unleashed on him personally.  I doubt he expected to be targeted so quickly.  That surely must make him question, how did the Americans know where he was?  He took the first hit, and now the US is sweeping through his country like a scythe harvesting wheat.  Precision munitions are demolishing presidential compounds, command and control bunkers, and yet the power stays on in Baghdad the whole time.  I think he knows it's over.  Maybe he's terrified for the first time in his life, maybe he's so cold he doesn't feel anything.  I don't know, what goes through the mind of one so evil?  I think of all that's happened under his rule - the butchering of dissidents, the chemical attacks on the Kurds and on Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, setting oil wells on fire, raising two demons for sons and teaching them the ways of brutality and torture at an age when other kids would be learning nursery rhymes... and then I wonder how all of this would have never happened if this man had instead been a good man, a kind man, and a compassionate man.  What horrors a single life can be responsible for.  Think of the wonders he could have created instead, how great a country Iraq could have been, and how rich a people if instead he used his power and authority to do good.  At least when this is over with he will harm nobody ever again, nor will his sons be left in power to continue his legacy of bloodshed.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2003-03-23, 11:51 »

prayers, god, winning and war are four words that don't fit into the same sentence (or post) if you ask me.

« Last Edit: 2003-03-23, 11:54 by Tabun » Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Atom235
 
Pain Elemental
****
Posts: 84

« Reply #7 on: 2003-03-23, 16:07 »

Praying for God to protect coalition troops is unethical. This is an illegal war according to the researchers of international justice. As illegal as Saddam's missiles and WMDs.

I personally hope that coalition will take full responsibility of what they are doing right now. That means cleaning it's own mess and face the other consequences of war, like new terrorist attacks.
Logged
Lilazzkicker
 

Beta Tester
Quad God
**********
Posts: 571

WWW
« Reply #8 on: 2003-03-23, 16:12 »

Bleh, the Coalition forces are doing what the UN should have been doing but werent, atm the UN is an example of how well it can not do something.
Logged
Moshman
 
Beta Tester
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 615

Yarg!

« Reply #9 on: 2003-03-23, 21:34 »

War sucks unbelivivably. But if we wait for Sadam to launch some shit, we would think twice and wished that we sent them. We should still pray that they come home safely. We don't want them to die do we? Sadam and his leaders is what we want, Sadam purposely put military buildings in a civilian envirmont. We need to take him and his leaders and sons out. Haven't you heard that one of his sons threw a bunch of people in a plastic shredder? He wants to harm people, and there is no place in this world for people like that...
And I am sick and tired of people calling bush (esp liberals) baby killer. If he was a "baby killer" he would not make an effort to outlaw abortion. (which is the same thing)
C'mon people, we are at war, we shouldn't be ripping our leaders like that.

Sadam = Cockroach
Bush =  Exterminator
Logged

Assamite
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 266

« Reply #10 on: 2003-03-24, 02:06 »

Banging Head against Wall

I won't bother with your anti-Left freeperism, but the "Bush = exterminator, Saddam = cockroach" argument is extremely fallible, considering that Saddam is not the only person in Iraq, and that Bush's techniques are  thoroughly uncomparable to the techniques of a bug exterminator.

For example, exterminators try to destroy ALL the bugs in the house. And it seems that the Bush administration is focusing ALL its resources on making war with Iraq and Iraq ALONE.
What about the loads of OTHER "evil dictators" around the world whose people need "liberating"? Why are we turning a blind eye to Liberia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and sporking SAUDI ARABIA (Who ACTUALLY supports terrorists!)?!

Face it, Saddam is being DEMONISED.

And an exterminator makes sure that all important life forms are clear of the house before he begins his operations. We are said to be liberating these people, yet we are bombing the hell out of them, simply to get to a single dictator.

AND YES, PEOPLE ARE GETTING KILLED. This includes Iraqis and Americans. And frankly, I don't know how the "shock and awe" campaign will make Americans feel safe or the Iraqis feel liberated.

And this war will kill more Iraqis and Americans than Saddam ever will in his life. Simply put, the U.S., along with the UK (Spain is contributing ZERO to the war - so much for the "coalition"), has TONS more firepower than Saddam has or ever will have. It's making "he gassed his own people" seem rather pathetic (Not to mention ironic, since the DoD has pondered using chemical weapons). By the way, I should mention that that happened back in 1988; let's just say that our view of Iraq and Saddam was a bit different that what it has been since 1991.

You know who recently launched a terrorist attack on American troops?
An American soldier.
An AMERICAN caused more damage to U.S. troops than the Iraqis ever will.

What IS the actual goal in Iraq? Is it a pre-emptive strike against Saddam for desiring to use weapons of mass destruction (Has he ever said he would do that?), as first stated? Is it a punishment for violating UN resolutions against these weapons? Is it about the multitudes of oil there, as stated by the Bush Administration's slips-of-the-mouth? Or is it the liberation of the Iraqi people from a tyrant?
Perhaps it is the first one, but that seems unlikely, considering that, according to the UN, the CIA, and top military officials, Saddam is unlikely to EVER do something that warrants a pre-emptive strike. The second one is just ridiculous, since Bush has openly DEFIED the UN, who, along with said CIA and top military officials, could find little evidence of weapons of mass destruction, in order to make this war. My guess is the third one, because of all those connections to Big Oil that the Bushies have.
But in any way, the Iraqi people, like the women of Afghanistan back in 2001 (remember that?), are being EXPLIOTED by the warmongers in order to justify the wholesale bombing of the country.

By the way, what ever DID happen to the people of Afghanistan that we "liberated" a while ago? Certainly is a paradise there, right? Oh, right - feuding warlords, Northern Alliance banditry, women remaining under the burqa, the U.S. not lifting a single government. The feuding Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are SO lucky to have the United States liberate them.

"We're at war" will NOT stop me from opposing it. This war remains UNJUST, and no amount of "support our troops" will change that. Frankly, I DO support "our troops", as they are human beings with family and all (my girlfriend has a brother in Iraq). I want them to come back in one piece. And that's why I want this war to END, so that they can come home.

Thus endeth my rant - for now...  Sipgate - Evil
Logged
Lilazzkicker
 

Beta Tester
Quad God
**********
Posts: 571

WWW
« Reply #11 on: 2003-03-24, 02:22 »

dont go on about the uselessness of the UN, everyone has seen the UN say something, then try backing out or delaying, what there useless weapon inspectors have never found, our troops stumbled upon.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1048389497622

but who knows, maybe its more propaganda right, or maybe we are dressing up 1000's of iraqi civ's and marching them around as enemy pow's

and dont give no bs about bush and oil, especially if you cant support it

and for being unjust as a war, tell that to the parents of the executed pow's

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/...3/3/3-23-23.htm
Logged
Moshman
 
Beta Tester
Vadrigar
**********
Posts: 615

Yarg!

« Reply #12 on: 2003-03-24, 02:34 »

Oh great here comes the "Bush us there for and only for the oil" fallesy.
Sadam had weapons of mass destruction in the past, if he wants poeple to belive him, he should have some evidence that he destroyed them...
Logged

Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8384

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2003-03-24, 06:38 »

Assamite, the next time you think that this war will kill more Iraqi's than Saddam ever did, why don't you ask actual Iraqi's what THEY think about it.  Ask the ones who fled Iraq when THOUSANDS of them were murdered during the uprising.  Ask the Kurds who were gassed in the north.  Ask a million or so Iranians who died in 8 years of war, including Scud missile attacks laced with chemical weapons.  Ask the Kuwaitis who were brutalized when Saddam invaded 12 years ago.  The Iraqi people, who have lived in fear of this man all their lives are WELCOMING this war!  Ask the former Iraqi Olympic team about how Saddam treated them, that is, those who managed to escape his regime.  You even have some of your "human shields" that came out of Iraq quite shocked and awed at what SADDAM had done to the families of the people they had spoken to.  You just don't get it, do you.  You just can't accept even the POSSIBILITY that just MAYBE Bush MIGHT ACTUALLY BE TELLING THE TRUTH.  It sickens you, doesn't it, to see the American military machine in action, doing exactly what they said they would.  The US is going out of its way to ensure only military targets are hit, but you don't believe that either.  No amount of evidence will EVER convince you of that, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind of believing that Bush is somehow the enemy and that Saddam is a victim here.  You've already made up your mind about this.  You say people are demonizing Saddam?  Well maybe (SURPRISE) IT'S BECAUSE HE DESERVES IT.  He IS a demon of a man, and so are those who support him.  If you think he's worth defending then I'll PAY for your plane ticket to Baghdad so you can go enlist in the Iraqi army.  Go defend your man if you think Bush is the enemy.  

I've studied the politics of this military engagement and the times leading up to it, and I've found the following to be true.

1)  Those who are protesting the war are primarily anti-Bush and/or anti-American.  Peace is not their objective, suppressing America's capability to act IS.  Peace will follow this conflict once either the US or Saddam is victorious.

2)  Those who are protesting have served only to ensure the outcome IS war.  The only way to peace would have been Saddam Hussein disarming in accordance to the UN resolutions, which he did not.  The protests only served to embolden him and entrench him.  War was guaranteed if not started to remove Saddam's regime, then later when Saddam became strong enough again to eventually invade another country.

3)  The countries opposed to the military enforcement of the UN resolutions had the most to lose either monitarily or politically from Saddam being overthrown.  Russia, China, France, and Germany all had economic ties to Iraq and were dealing illegally with Saddam by violating the UN sanctions.

4)  The Iraqi people stand to benefit the most from this engagement in the long run.  Under the UN sanctions the export of Iraqi oil was restricted to I believe 1 million barrels a day, maybe 2, supposedly for food.  Like North Korea, Iraq was using the sale of this oil to instead buy weapons and components illegally while letting its people starve to death.  Iraq was also smuggling oil out in barely seaworthy craft that could have caused environmental catastrophies at any time.  Drilling for new oil was also forbidden.  With the regime gone and the sanctions lifted the Iraqis can drill for more oil and export more, thereby exporting up to 6 million barrels a day.  This future money is already earmarked to go back to the Iraqi people, not the US.  This will feed their country and allow them to prosper theoretically, once the hard part of rebuilding is done.  How many starved to death under the UN sanctions?  With a US presence in the region for some time after this is over it will also provide key intelligence and a launching off point in the short term for counter-terrorism operations.

5)  The opposition movement likes catch phrases, "no blood for oil", etc, but refuses to acknowledge facts that serve either to justify this action or else at least explain the danger of Iraq and its weapons program in favor of maintaining a political position.  Politics politics politics, that's all it is.  Logistically, strategically, and legally this war IS justified in accordance to both the United States constitution, the post 9/11 congressionally signed resolution authorizing the President to use force against terrorists OR states that support terrorist networks, and also by the United Nations resolutions 1441 and backward to the surrender terms of the original Gulf War in 1991.  Although risky in the long term it's strategically sound in the short term to remove a key supplier of some very nasty poisons so that terrorists cannot get them, or at least, any more than they already have.  Logistically it is sound in that the US forces WILL for the most part overwhelm the Iraqi opposition.

6)  The anti-war opposition movement typically consists of:

   In the United States:  members of the Democratic party, specifically the ones who are farthest left
   Left-wing activist groups
   Bush haters
   Republican haters
   Conspiracy theory paranoids
   Citizens of countries who are predominantly socialist and/or communist in political ideology
   College students who protest anything and everything anyway
   The same anti-war demonstrators who organized during the vietnam war
   Those who already harbor anti US and anti western sentiment without this war (they're just more vocal now)
   
This is why this issue is so polarized is that you are seeing a severe clash between conservatives and liberals.  The fact that it is being carried out by the United States is all the more why the left opposes it.  Left wing liberals typically are anti-American, pro-socialist, anti-military, and despise any power or wealth unless it belongs to them.  The USA is both wealthy and powerful.  Back in the 1990's when a Democrat president launched over 400 cruise missiles into Baghdad nobody protested it.  Back when the United States bombed Bosnia flat, committed no ground troups, and let thousands of Albanians be murdered by the Serbs nobody protested it, all the while France was giving intelligence data to Milosivec and the US ends up bombing empty buildings and also the Chinese Embassy.  This action was NOT sanctioned by the United Nations, it was in every sense of the word unilateral, and carried out with no diplomatic attempts whatsoever.  So why then would it be that the current action is opposed when diplomatic channels were approached, and was sanctioned by UN resolution 1441?  I can only conclude it's because there is a Republican in the White House, and the anti-war crowd, being predominantly liberal as it were, can't stand Republicans and cares more about their political ideology than doing their homework and dealing with the facts.  Now the facts surface that yes indeed, a chemical weapons manufacturing facility HAS been captured.  You wanted proof, there it is, although since it was posted first on an Israeli news site I won't be surprised in the slightest if such proof is rejected, written off so easily as "zionist propaganda".  In the end, to you only America can be in the wrong here, along with Israel, only American bombs kill civilians, only America is guilty of anything here.  Saddam is a victim and America will end up causing more casualties to you than Saddam no matter what the numbers, and if the numbers disagree with your preconceived notion of how things SHOULD go you just won't believe them, it's all propaganda to you.

It really is absurdley pathetic how predictable all this has become.  Tell me this, Assamite, are you afraid of the United States being victorious?  Are you afraid of Iraq having freedom and eventually democracy?  Is the US evil in your eyes?  Are you afraid of Saudi Arabia no longer being the oil monopoly of the world, as the Saudi's are afraid of happening?  Are you afraid that maybe you were wrong?  Or are you just afraid that once the smoke clears of Bush having another 4 years in office?  Open your eyes to what's really going on out there.  The world is a dangerous place, full of thugs and bullies.  If you can only see as far as the White House then I seriously doubt you're ready to face the brutal reality that is human existence.  Peace, harmony, and brotherhood only works if there are no evil men in the world.  Until then it's kill or be killed when threats arise.  Americans don't tolerate dead bodies on US soil at someone else's hand.  Just because the rest of the world is that way doesn't in their minds make it acceptible if they have the power to stop it.  The difference between the rest of the world and the US is that the US CAN and WILL prevent its enemies from hurting it.  I know if I had a nest and someone was going to attack it I'd rip them to shreds before they ever had a chance.  I wouldn't wait until my hatchlings were already half-eaten, that rather defeats the purpose.  What the US is doing is no different in my eyes.  I don't like the wars that go on constantly on this world, but frankly I'm pleased to see an evil man and his thugs getting what they deserve for a change, as opposed to a nuclear bomb or a VX gas attack killing millions in a US city a few years from now.  That may still happen, but perhaps not as soon and not by any weapons supplied by Iraq.  Saddam had 12 years to change his ways, he decided not to, and now he's reaping the consequences for it.  You want to blame anyone for this put the blame where it goes, on Saddam Hussein. Big Gun Oh My F'ing Gawd
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
McDeth
 

Makron
********
Posts: 388

Wildly Inappropriate

« Reply #14 on: 2003-03-24, 06:47 »

I feel sorry for Saddam myself. I mean,wouldn't  you feel like shit if you knew that ALL of  America and some of its allies were after you and your family? Oh well, I guess he shold have thought about it before he decided to be a sporktard to the whole world......
Logged

Beer? I'm down.
Dr. Jones
 

Team Member
Tank Commander
********
Posts: 168

WWW
« Reply #15 on: 2003-03-24, 11:41 »

IN RESPONSE TO ASSAMITE

preface/disclaimer: i will quote each of assamite's arguments/rebuttals, after which i will respond.  i will also sometimes go off on a slight tangent to more thoroughly cover a subject, to provide background information that may be useful in understanding my response.  also, i do propose some theoretical and/or future situations in this response.  i admit, they may tend toward the idealistic side, but i have tried to tone them down with practicality and realism, in the hopes that i will provide a realistic "best-case scenario" that our government will strive to attain, and one day bring to fruition.

Quote
I won't bother with your anti-Left freeperism, but the "Bush = exterminator, Saddam = cockroach" argument is extremely fallible, considering that Saddam is not the only person in Iraq, and that Bush's techniques are  thoroughly uncomparable to the techniques of a bug exterminator.
heh.  first of all it's not an argument, merely an analogy.  if you're that desperate for ammunition, you need to do a lot more research before you open your piehole again (or type, for that matter)... but for you to say that "saddam is not the only person in iraq"... duh.  i think the analogy works quite well.  when you call the exterminator, he comes and kills all the pests (saddam, his sons, and the republican guard) in your house (iraq), but does his best not to harm any of your pets (civilians).  however, he might accidentally spray an area your pet travels through, and inadvertently harm it.  however, this doesn't happen very often, and usually when it does, it's minimal.  i'm not saying this excuses any civilian casualties we may have caused or will cause, just pointing out that it may happen.

Quote
What about the loads of OTHER "evil dictators" around the world whose people need "liberating"? Why are we turning a blind eye to Liberia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, and sporking SAUDI ARABIA (Who ACTUALLY supports terrorists!)?!
Liberia, Zimbabwe, and Pakistan do not pose a threat to the rest of the free world.  and that is the fatal flaw in your entire thought paradigm.  you start firing off based on the assumption that the primary reason we are warring with iraq is to liberate it's people.  wrong.  we declared war on iraq because saddam refuses to cooperate with UN mandates, and continues to produce weapons of mass destruction.  do you think he's making VX nerve gas missiles so he can prop them up in a glass case in his presidential palace as decorations?  no.  and bush knows this.  left alone, these WMDs would make their way into the hands of people who will use them against the US or it's allies -- either the iraqi military itself, or terrorists.  as far as saudi arabia supporting terrorists, no they don't, at least not on an official state level.  you know, i know, and everyone else knows that much of the money saudi oil barons make off the oil eventually makes its way into terrorists' pockets, but how do you plan to stop this?  go into saudi arabia and cap all the oil wells?  unfortunately, not even alternative fuel cars will cause the demand for oil to cease.  gasoline is simply a minor byproduct of oil processing.  most oil-based products go into things we all use in our everyday lives, such as plastics, lubricants, synthetic fibers, and the processing of other materials.  if you truly want to help curb oil consumption, use only wood, glass, and metal objects (this means your house, your desk, your vehicle, tools of entertainment, etc) and wear only wool and/or cotton.  yup.  that means you'd better toss that computer out right now.  face it: our lives depend on oil, and saudi arabia is one of the largest producers in the world; we can't just stop buying from them, unless you want to pay $5+ a gallon for gas, $200+ for a cheap power supply (you want the wires insulated, don't you?), and more exorbitant prices for almost everything you use every day.  okay, next Slipgate - Tongue

Quote
And this war will kill more Iraqis and Americans than Saddam ever will in his life. Simply put, the U.S., along with the UK (Spain is contributing ZERO to the war - so much for the "coalition"), has TONS more firepower than Saddam has or ever will have. It's making "he gassed his own people" seem rather pathetic (Not to mention ironic, since the DoD has pondered using chemical weapons). By the way, I should mention that that happened back in 1988; let's just say that our view of Iraq and Saddam was a bit different that what it has been since 1991.
just because we have more firepower doesn't mean we'll kill more people.  it means we'll level more centers of power of saddam's regime, and will better be able to destroy armored/reinforced vehicles and bunkers.  also, our raw demolitions power isn't necessarily much stronger than saddam's (although we have a lot more missiles etc)... our power lies in the ability to launch a precision strike.  if we so wanted, we could've sent one of the tomahawks into a specific window on a presidential palace, the targeting is that precise.  this means that we will be able to accomplish more with the same destructive force, because we will be able to put that force where it will cause the most damage to our target.  it also means that we will be able to fire at our target with 99.9% certainty that a missile won't overshoot it and hit a civilian area.  would you rather we use SCUD missiles like the iraqis, that have an accuracy  of less than 50%, often falling short, far, and/or wide of the intended target?  oh, and just because the DoD "pondered" using chemical weapons, doesn't mean we came anywhere near actually using them.  i would almost bet money that what you heard was a report of an e-mail from some radical right-wing NRA officer in the pentagon, of the mindset that we should level the whole place, who suggested the use of it.  just because a few guys think it might be a good idea doesn't mean we do it.  the president is there to make sure of that.  and bush knows it would be political suicide to use chemical weapons.  oh, and back to your very first argument in this paragraph, that we will kill more than saddam ever will.  tell that to the families of men who have been killed by saddam's regime because uday fancied their wives.  and to the families of those women, after uday killed them too.  granted, saddam isn't quite as bad as uday, but he has a very tight political agenda within his country, and anyone who is contrary to that agenda is nixed without saddam batting an eye.

Quote
You know who recently launched a terrorist attack on American troops?
An American soldier.
An AMERICAN caused more damage to U.S. troops than the Iraqis ever will.
an american soldier who should never have been allowed to remain in the military after converting to a radical sect of Islam.  he did this because he is sympathetic to the iraqis and to radical muslim terrorists.  this man is a traitor to the country.  what i find interesting is that you point this out as though it has some validity in an anti-war argument.  if he hadn't done that there, he would've eventually just committed another terrorist attack later on on U.S. soil, a la the oklahoma city bombing.  the only thing that would've kept him from harming anybody would have been to either imprison him or kill him before he did it.  however, we did not have any idea he would have actually done this until he did it.

the next paragraph will be broken up into more manageable bits

Quote
What IS the actual goal in Iraq? Is it a pre-emptive strike against Saddam for desiring to use weapons of mass destruction (Has he ever said he would do that?), as first stated? Is it a punishment for violating UN resolutions against these weapons? Is it about the multitudes of oil there, as stated by the Bush Administration's slips-of-the-mouth? Or is it the liberation of the Iraqi people from a tyrant?
#1: YES - does it matter that he said he would do it?  did hitler say he was going to go on a genocidal rampage before he did it?

#2: YES - as phoenix pointed out, he did in fact have weapons in violation of U.N. sanctions.  when we first had our camps near the iraqi border, four (banned) SCUD missiles were fired.  fortunately, all of them went wide of their mark and exploded in unpopulated areas.  also, as shown by the article pho was referring to, we have recently come across a camoflauged chemical manufacturing plant that has since been confirmed to have been used in the manufacture of VX nerve gas, and possibly other lethal chemicals for military use.  as far as bush defying the U.N., i'm not sure where you're getting that.  if you're referring to the use of force against iraq for noncooperation with U.N. weapons inspections and disarmament, the use of force was actually explicitly called for in U.N. resolution 1441 that phoenix cited, which was finalized about 4-1/2 months ago.  in that 18 week span, saddam has done j4ck and sh1t to disarm.
#3: NO - again, as phoenix has pointed out, money from the oil wells after saddam has been removed from power will go back towards the reconstruction of iraq, and money from the oil will then be put in a U.N. trust fund to help the country as a whole.  with regards to your usage of the term "slips of the mouth", no they weren't "slips".  the U.S. government has openly stated their intentions for iraqi oil, as i have stated above.
#4: YES/NO - although it will be a positive byproduct of removing saddam from power for reasons #1 and #2, this is not the primary objective of our war in iraq.

Quote
But in any way, the Iraqi people, like the women of Afghanistan back in 2001 (remember that?), are being EXPLIOTED by the warmongers in order to justify the wholesale bombing of the country.
erm, if i'm not mistaken, "wholesale bombing of a country" basically means carpet-bombing, i.e. flying armadas of bombers over the country dropping thousands of bombs, basically with the intent of leveling everything.  every single missile fired by the coalition has been explicitly targeted at areas of power of saddam's regime, i.e. governmental buildings and presidential palaces.

Quote
By the way, what ever DID happen to the people of Afghanistan that we "liberated" a while ago? Certainly is a paradise there, right? Oh, right - feuding warlords, Northern Alliance banditry, women remaining under the burqa, the U.S. not lifting a single government. The feuding Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites are SO lucky to have the United States liberate them.
no, they are not in a "paradise", as they should be in ideally.  however, our primary goal there, as it is now in iraq, was to remove from power a corrupt dictatorial government that either directly attacked us or our allies, or funded and/or harbored terrorists who attacked us or our allies (in the case of the taliban, they harbored and funded the al quaeda terrorist network).  we instated a government there selected from rebels whose values are similar to ours, i.e. peace, freedom, and democracy.  however, this government does not have as much power in afghanistan as we would like, and cannot control much of the country outside a few of the more populous cities.  as a result, the feuding warlords and bandits and such run rampant in poorer, lesser populated areas outside of the major cities.  however, we have our hands full trying to depose another enemy government, as well as continuing our attempt to eradicate the remnants of al quaeda in afghanistan.  perhaps once things settle down a bit with regards to the war on saddam and the war on terrorists, we will be able to lend a hand and help afghanistan stabilize itself.

Quote
"We're at war" will NOT stop me from opposing it. This war remains UNJUST, and no amount of "support our troops" will change that. Frankly, I DO support "our troops", as they are human beings with family and all (my girlfriend has a brother in Iraq). I want them to come back in one piece. And that's why I want this war to END, so that they can come home.
your oppositon of this war is your opinion, and as granted by the constitution of the united states of america, you are free to express it.  however, i am free to express my opinion and facts known to me to rebut your opinion Slipgate - Wink .  i'm glad you support our troops though.  since we have committed them to the war, the best we can do now is to hope and pray for their safe return.  however, you say you want this war to end.  don't we all?  however, we can't just pull out now, leaving saddam's regime crippled but not destroyed.  although it would take him a while to rebuild, his sole goal after rebuilding would be to seek revenge.

in summary, my opinion of saddam and his government:

~

now i'm thirsty.  a nice pint of guinness should rectify that.  Having a Beer

ah, much better.  now, being that it's 2:45AM...   Slipgate - Asleep
« Last Edit: 2003-03-24, 20:57 by Lt. Phil » Logged
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
 

Team Member
Elite (3k+)
******
Posts: 3330

WWW
« Reply #16 on: 2003-03-24, 16:15 »

http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html
Always good to see some of the filmmakers still have guts.
Logged

Tabun ?Morituri Nolumus Mori?
Atom235
 
Pain Elemental
****
Posts: 84

« Reply #17 on: 2003-03-24, 20:59 »

Way to go Tab Slipgate - Laugh


Quote
Ask a million or so Iranians who died in 8 years of war, including Scud missile attacks laced with chemical weapons.

A war which US supported by importing weapons to Iraq.

Quote
I don't like the wars that go on constantly on this world, but frankly I'm pleased to see an evil man and his thugs getting what they deserve for a change, as opposed to a nuclear bomb or a VX gas attack killing millions in a US city a few years from now.

Saddam hasn't done anything to your country. It's strange to assume that he would have in the alterative future.  But... the chance that terrorist might have acquired such weapons from Iraq is possible.

Quote
Logistically, strategically, and legally this war IS justified in accordance to both the United States constitution, the post 9/11 congressionally signed resolution authorizing the President to use force against terrorists OR states that support terrorist networks, and also by the United Nations resolutions 1441 and backward to the surrender terms of the original Gulf War in 1991.
 

Again.. it may be logistically and strategically justified, but not legally. A group of leading Finnish researcers of law have confirmed that it's "clearly illegal".

Quote
No amount of evidence will EVER convince you of that, no amount of evidence will ever change your mind of believing that Bush is somehow the enemy and that Saddam is a victim here.  You've already made up your mind about this.  You say people are demonizing Saddam?  Well maybe (SURPRISE) IT'S BECAUSE HE DESERVES IT.  He IS a demon of a man, and so are those who support him.  If you think he's worth defending then I'll PAY for your plane ticket to Baghdad so you can go enlist in the Iraqi army.  Go defend your man if you think Bush is the enemy.

Bush is far from innocent, too. He uses clever propaganda and religion to distract people. But.. as you stated, Saddam is a different class of evil man.

Honestly.. why you think your country is always right? I have read stories from newspapers that US blackmailed and bribed poor countries  with money to support war on Iraq. White House, white lies.







Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8384

WWW
« Reply #18 on: 2003-03-25, 00:00 »

"A group of leading Finnish researchers of law"...  Finnish researchers?  Forgive me for appearing naive here, but just when has Finland been involved directly in large matters of international importance of late?  Sounds like arm-chair lawyering to me by a bunch of intellectual highbrows.  Lawyers represent the apex of deception in this world, turning plain text and blunt statements into whatever mish-mash they feel.  I'm sorry, but a spade is a spade, treat it that way.  Go read the surrender terms of 91 yourself if you doubt me.  I also have a very low opinion of bureaucrats and diplomats.  The most corrupt schemes in history usually are started by diplomacy and secret agreements, which ultimately result in war.  The alignments of countries in WWI and WWII were partly to blame in allowing it to become world-wide in scale.  I think some years from now you'll find that the root causes for this war have been no different, which is why France, Germany, and Russia are so very much opposed to it.  There are many skeletons in the closet they share with Iraq.

The argument that Saddam has done nothing to the US is again one of those commonly bleated slogans used by the sheep out there.  It might be noted that the Germans didn't initially do anything to the US in WWII either, nor did Japan.  The US stayed out and Japan attacked anyway.  You cannot negotiate with evil men and evil regimes, history has proven time and time again that tyrants like Saddam DO NOT CARE.  A murderer is a murderer because he kills people, and people like Saddam DO NOT CARE WHO THEY KILL.  He'd kill YOU without batting an eye for it the same as he'd kill his own population.  This goes back to the "wait until it happens vs preventing it" argument.  If you want the US to sit all content within its borders then that's fine, but then when someone DID nuke a city where would the finger pointing go?  We'd hear "Bush knew!" all over again just like after 9/11, and the same opposition would exist when the US retaliated - this time maybe even with nuclear weapons.  I seem to remember Chirac saying "We're all Americans" when 9/11 happened.  My my how fast you learn who your friends are, don't you?  It's the same old stuff, just repackaged with a new label slapped on it, but it still stinks just as badly.  Really, this is easier to predict than Lilazzkicker's movements in a railgun fight.  No offense, Lil.  Also you seem to have the mistaken notion that I blindly support US policy all the time.  I do not.  There are many things the United States does and has done in the past that I dislike, but this handling of Iraq isn't one of them.  I do not bring those up because frankly they are not relevant to this issue, and I refuse to sit here and let this degenerate into yet more America-bashing from the left, which (surprise) showed up the instant something GOOD was said about what's going on.  I have my own opinions of a great many things that I choose not to voice because frankly it would offend just about every member of your species that reads this board.  Reserving such opinions is something called "tact".  There are already enough critics of US policy, I don't need to add to them.

I tried to say something positive here about this, tried to look on the BRIGHT side and out again comes Assamite to criticize and tear down, and you're so very quick to do the same.  You want to yet again somehow shift the blame to the US for this, which also is a very obvious and predictable tactic that's been played over and over and over again for the last six months.  Blaming the US for Iraq launching missiles into Iran is akin to blaming a gun manufacturer for the criminal's misuse of a firearm, but that too is a common tactic for the left, although I don't see automobile manufacturers or alcohol distributors blamed for the deaths caused by drunken drivers who misuse both.  Nevermind that the individual with their finger on either the button or the trigger, or hand on the wheel, ultimately is the one making that decision and bears the full responsibility for it.  One rule for one situation, one rule for another, the deciding factor being political convenience, yet you'll accuse the opposition of the very same thing.  It's like the Afghanistan situation.  The US armed the Afghanis to help kick out the INVADING SOVIET ARMY at the time.  Some unscrupulous elements turned against the US, attacked the US, and they got the expected retaliation.  Nevermind the fact that a LOT of the Afghanis fought alongside the US special ops forces against the Taliban and Al Qaida, and continue to do so.  Not a perfect world, but it's better than the terrorist training ground it was, and the Taliban had every opportunity to turn over Bin Laden, the same as Saddam had to turn over his weapons.  But then, hindsight is always clearer than foresight, no?  So much easier it is to blame after the fact than to make the hard decisions of the present.  If you say Saddam was created by the US, why then would you be opposed to the US exterminating it's own Frankenstein's monster if this is the case?  Shouldn't the US be lauded for taking responsibility for it's mistakes then?  But nothing the US does will ever please someone if they already have decided they hate the United States.  That's what this is all really about when it comes down to it - prejudice.  If you want to play the blame game we could go all the way back through history back to when Cain slew Abel, and when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit, and what would it accomplish?  Nothing.  Pointing a finger at someone solves nothing.  I could sit here and lay out atrocity after atrocity your species commits against nature every day of every year, but what good would it do, hmm?  It would change nothing.  In the end Saddam is evil, he's a manace to a lot more than just the US, and he's going bye-bye now, whether you like it or not.

It will get ugly here in the next few days as ground troops roll close to Baghdad, which the US if it wanted to could leave a smoking nuclear crater instead of putting it's men and women in harms way and spending billions on precision munitions to minimize as much civilian loss of life as possible.  The US if it wanted to could clean the face of the earth of just about any adversary it has and nobody could do anything about it outside of God or some more advanced civilization.  The fact that the US is taking the harder road and sacrificing its own troops in this should tell you that at least the US military gives a damn about innocent lives.  Although many are happy the US is taking out Saddam, there ARE a lot of Iraqis who hate the US but aren't shooting, and the US is going out of its way to not kill those very people.  Keep that in mind when the casualties start to mount on both sides from the push into Baghdad.
« Last Edit: 2003-03-25, 00:02 by Phoenix » Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Dr. Jones
 

Team Member
Tank Commander
********
Posts: 168

WWW
« Reply #19 on: 2003-03-25, 00:01 »

Quote
Saddam hasn't done anything to your country. It's strange to assume that he would have in the alterative future.  But... the chance that terrorist might have acquired such weapons from Iraq is possible.

No he hasn't done anything directly to us, but he has invaded our allies before, and is quite obviously not on our side, even going so far as to praise the Sept. 11 attacks.  Would you rather we wait until he gets the capability to do something to us?  Oh yes, you don't live here so you don't tend to think of that aspect.  I've noticed this a lot from people in other countries.  They haven't been hit by terrorism, and probably won't be (at least not for a long time), and have no idea of what it's like waking up each morning wondering if your friends are going to go up in smoke and flames because some country has funded another terrorist attack.

Quote
Again.. it may be logistically and strategically justified, but not legally. A group of leading Finnish researcers of law have confirmed that it's "clearly illegal".

Good for them.  I have yet to see this proof of illegality, and I don't see how we are going against the U.N., considering UN resolution 1441.  Yes we went in without the approval or support of the U.N., but that doesn't mean we're going against them.

Quote
Bush is far from innocent, too. He uses clever propaganda and religion to distract people. But.. as you stated, Saddam is a different class of evil man.

No, Bush isn't perfect.  But who is?  I have yet to see one iota of "propaganda" from Bush that comes anywhere near the level of propaganda put out on Iraqi national news networks by Saddam and his regime.  Everyone is going to want their country to look the best to its citizens, and propaganda is inevitable in war.  this does not make its leader evil.

Quote
Honestly.. why you think your country is always right? I have read stories from newspapers that US blackmailed and bribed poor countries  with money to support war on Iraq. White House, white lies.

*looks back through his and phoenix's previous posts to see where we said we thought our country was always right*

Oh yeah, we never did.  no the U.S. is not always right.  But no country is ever "always right".  No one can truly have all the facts when making decisions and still be able to make them in a timely manner, so our leaders make their decisions based on what they know at the time, hoping they have made the best choice.  Yes, Bush has made mistakes.  But he is doing what he believes is in the best interest of this country (which is why we elected him, wasn't it?) and, in this case, what he believes is in the best interest of all free nations.

Personally, I'm getting tired of citizens of non-involved countries getting up on their soapboxes and preaching to the world about the demon in the whitehouse and the bully nation of the United States and all that horseshit.  Let's see how your leaders react when terrorists blow up your buildings and kill thousands of your people.  Of course I don't want this to happen, but I'm just saying, walk a mile in our shoes before you tell us where to walk.  Slipgate - Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
  Print  
 
Jump to: