Wirehead Studios

Vive la France!

(http://www.modfather.org/CRAP/sos.jpg)

Q: How many frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A: No one knows, it's never happened!

Q: Why do the french plant trees on both sides of the street?
A: So the Germans can march in the shade!

Hehehe, oooh that's rotten, but I like it!  :D

Someone has to stand up against overbearing stupidity, so Vive la France, except without the sarcasm

i wouldnt actually go there and say that the only thing that the french are good at is surrendering

they did get their asses kicked in ww2 thats true since the releid on the maginot line and the germans drova around it through belgium and holland

they got their asses kicked in vietnam but so did you........

the french foregin legion is as though as your seals and whatnot
they actually had ground troops in kosovo while you just bombed the chineese embassy and blamed it on technical errors and old maps

the politicians are trying to protect french interests in iraq as they have some and so would the US president if the country that we were talking about would be saudi israel or kuwait instead of iraq

i do not agree with you on this
furthermore the political bullying that the US are trying to pull now sickens me
yes the US is the only remaining super power but that gives it responsability and not the right to do whatever it pleases

this is more of a personal grudge from Mr Bush ( qoute: That man tried to kill my father unquote, not the brightest thing to say when trying to get the rest of the world to agree that attacking iraq is a good thing) then anything else and i doubt theyll be more successfull this time around

i doubt however that will or can back off untill Saddam hands over a weapon off mass destruction and resigns, something that is as likely to happen as hell freezing over

i dont belive in weapon inspections as he had over a year of hiding thoose things if he had them in the first place

and i belive north korea to be the greater evil of the two
Kim whatever his name is stated that NK was ready to rain down fire on the US and that theyd attack south korea if the US started to blockade them
i fear that NK will try something when theworld is busy with iraq

i may be wrong in this i dont know but neither do you
i hope that a peacfull solution can be found as the people of iraq has suffered enough
the sanctions have only affected the middleclass and down they are all poor now the upper-class havent had their life style affected the slightest

Is the US ready to make such a commitment in troops money and time to really make iraq a democracy?? it will take time years even
otherwise well just replace one mad-hatter with another one

Although I don't support the views that have caused that picture appear, it made my mouth go  :)

I don't have a problem with making funny jokes of other countries, but I just wanna point something out here:

Quote by =GS= Ulric (PlanetWolfenstein):
"Most Americans don't realize that we were really allied with the French in the War of 1812. If the French were not pre-occupying the British in Europe, we Americans would probablly have been defeated in this war."

also we french , and dutch people where peaceloving people then and we atually didnt need an army.
hell we had 3 plains back then and those where shot donw when they where still standing on the ground
only true defence what we had where forts all around the country and since you can't move those things the germans just drove around those .

The only reason my country needs troops is peacekeeping, and we do a fine job of it, even when the americans run like sissies *cough* Somalia *cough*

For the record, during the French Revolution, The french militia fought off 2 armies (The Brits and the Dutch) on two fronts

I don't see Bush Reacting to the 150,000 person anti-war rally in NYC or the several Million that are coming to washington, oh and they accuse him of not caring about his constituents.... geez he's proving them wrong

first off the french foreign legion are a bunch of asskickers but most of them arent french. thats why they call it the foreign legion. secondly its not that the french got thier asses kicked in world war 2 its that they surrendered thier country to the freaking nazis in a matter of weeks.
  The argument that war should be averted because the iraqi people have suffered enough is rather short sighted.  If saddams bath party were to continue to rull (and they would) the same ruthless opression the iraqis  suffer everyday would go on indefinately. peace activists forget that the U.S military would have to kill nearly 10 times the amount of iraqis that died in the gulf war to equal the amount of iraqis who have been starved tortured and murderd in the last 12 years alone. there has been no reason for 2 million iraqi children to have starved to death in the last decade. despite UN trade restriction saddam has had ample money to build himself sevral palaces and giant satues of himself he should be able to feed his people.
 The only reason france's opinion matters worth a damn is that the United states is humoring them. france has no real power on the world stage and nothing to offer except for wine and antisemitism.
 lets make a deal stop calling americans warmongers because were willing to do what needs to be done , and we will stop calling you fancy lads because youd rather stay out.

What has to be done? Where is the proof of the weapons of mass destruction? Where is the proof of the links to Al'Queda? This is nothing more than a vandetta by George Bush for Sadam ruining his father's legacy.

There has yet to be shown any proof of anything by the americans, and if they really had something they would have shown it by now

You don't send 150,000 troops if you think one man is the problem. Hell if the US went to the Security council tommorow with a resolution that they would send in special forces to find and shoot Sadam Hussein, hell I'd back it. The thing is they wont do it, they're going to destroy the lives of another generation (no pun intended) of Iraquis instead. Before the initial Desert Storm Iraq was the most literate and best educated arab country in the middle east, and now they are near the bottom.

Americans are spit at on every continent of the world because of people like you, thank you for your opinion, and don't leave the country please.

Americans themselves are good people but the people who run their country aren't and because they are elected by the american people they give the impression that they represent them. Its a sad day for the republic when your leaders stop listening

Erm... it didn't even ONCE occur to you that it was the UN SANCTIONS that caused the death of half a million Iraqi babies? That the UN, not Saddam, was blocking the entry of certain foods because they were said to be potential weapons? (YES, potential weapons!)

No, of course not. After all, it's Saddam's fault. It always is. But hey, even if the suffering of the people IS the responsibility of the leaders, we should be looking to the leaders at HOME for the people's lack of adequate housing, food, health care, etc., before we turn to Iraq.


You spoke of constituents? (http://www.bettybowers.com/protests.html)

of course its saddams fault! last time i checked he was in charge of iraq and the Un santions havent mattered worth a damn because iraq still has trade with other arab nations despite them.
 the UN santions are as limp and ineffective as the UN itself who by the way wouldnt have inspectors in iraq at all if we hadnt threatened to go in anyway.
   ask the kurds if he has weapons of mass destruction or not i hear they have first hand knowledge of it.

Whoops. Looks like this thread is in the wrong forum...

Yes, George Bush Senior who gave Saddam the weapons asked the Kurds to openly defy sadam during Dessert Storm, and then.... he left them there, and didn't finnish the job, hooray for strategy....

For the sake of pissing on americans i'd love to see Bush go at this alone, Blaire will be kicked out of his own party when he does this, I watch the BBC, Britians aren't happy. Then Americans wont be able to travel anywhere without being spit at, now if your into that whole spit fetish thing then more power to ya Mr.Oil... err I mean Bush

Q:Why are the French the best to buy weapons from?

A:They have never been fired and they only have been dropped once?

 :D  :lol:

rofl...it was just a joke. I never ment to make any profound statements about the french. I didn't mean to spark a debate.

/me hangs head in shame.

sometimes you get an unexpected bonus con

in sex it can be a child or an desise and with this kind of mocking you can have a debatte nothing worng with a good debate i always say.
 dont feel bad about it con instead enjoy the show

to woodsman + the rest but primarely woodsman: Yes the sanctions have been ineffective against the ruling class because they have MONEY and hence can buy what they want from smugglers

the UN-sanctions have only hurt the innocent and im not in favor of thoose either

the only effect it has had really is that the iraqies hate the US and the UN for making them suffer

its saddams fault you say? he's their glorious leader and doesnt make anything wrong, thats what their told through the propagande much like you are told that the iraqies have weapons off mass-destruction
i agree with devlar that if the us had any real proof they would have shown it by now the proof presented by collin powell wasnt convincable
granted he did an excellent rethorical presentation and that helped the fact that thoose pieces of evidence were circumstansial at best

More and more iraqies turn to religion for answers as do most people when youre suffering for no appearent reason
And we know that many of the imans hold no love for the us or a democratic society were people are secularisised (dont know if you can translate it like this but what i mean is that people care less for religion as their living standards improve and the have access to global news and more information) the imans power would decrease and as any lobby group they arent gonna sit by and watch that happen. look at how the mullas in the iranian parlament block any bill or decre that would make the country more democratic and west oriented.

the ones that bush really should try to work with on this and convince is the saudis and the rest of the arabic countries as the hate for america will only increase in the region otherwise
the US need one or more islamic allies and this should be about freeing the iraqies from saddam not about his aleged weapons of massdestruction

obviously no arabic country is willing to support the us in this not because the aprove of saddam or not but because most of them arent really democracies but ruled by a single family in some cases. the idea of a democracy isnt something that they are really fond for selfexplanatory reasons

the french surrendering in ww2? yes when most of the high command and the goverment is captured that tend to happen.
the maginot line and the french army as a whole was set on another trench war like ww1 and failed to heed the warnings in time and couldnt addapt to the new kind of warfare: blitzkreig

this was sometihng entirely new and in the early stages of the war the german army was nearly invinceble
it was fast had a lot of firepower and the greman armour was the best in the world in 1940:s and they still produce some of the best armour in the world to this day.

the greman army that the french was defeated by wanst anything like the one the US troops fought later on
by that time hitlers insanity had escalated and he made a lot of tactical errors and had killed of a lot of the high command
by 1945 not a lot off the original generals were left and none that had disagreed with him

yes parts of the foregin legion is made up by forigners but the majority is still french nowadays

Yes, saddam is a despotical tyrant and yes he should reliquish power that would be the ideal sollution.
Yes the only way to make saddam stepp down is by force

there are other mad tyrants out there that are equaly worthy of attention from the US in particular but the rest of the world aswell
http://www.winbeta.org/modules.php?name=Ne...article&sid=907 (http://www.winbeta.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=907)

but north korea doesnt have the oil does it and that is what many belive is the US reason for doing this cheaper oil for you less for the rest of the world
granted that that is a stupid argument but so is the reasons for attacking iraq so far
yes Saddam isnt Mr Niceguy of the year but he isnt alone there are lots of rulers that should be deposed and Kim Jong Il is top of that list in my book
NK is activly making or trying to make nukes and admits to doing so + they threaten the US but why dont we see anything about North Korea? wich is a far greater threat to stability in its respective region then iraq
but south korea doesnt have nay oil so its of lesser concern atm

but we wont agree on this ever as you watch media that try to convince you that USA should invade iraq
granted im less for a war with iraq because our media isnt pushing for war
but on the other hand isnt a peacefull solution the best if one can be achived?

You mean Americans aren't already spat at when going around the world Devlar? I don't see why, after all we are the largest terrorist country in the world. The dictionary definition for terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, and that's exactly what we are doing at this very moment. I personally don't see why North Korea is ruled out so quickly though, I hear they have very nice cabbage... Of course that won't fuel our vehicles. This is what being global police gets you though, hate, especially when you have an incompetent leader who can barely manage to read the teleprompter. Sounds like another power struggle at the expense of the American dream to me :(

bush gave iraq weapons during the iran iraq war but he didnt give them any VX gas!.
  and its not the united states that is owned 30 billion in oil from saddam its the french. 30 billion they wont get if saddam is taken out .
 Hypocrites

The French and the British are the ones that started this in the first place. If it were not for their secret negotiations during World War 1 to divide the Arabic countries, we would not see these current problems. The British screwed the French out of most everything due to oil, which the British navy had switched to right before the war. While they were also screwing over the Arabs, encouraging them to revolt with empty promises of independent kingdoms. Prince Faisel practically sold his own people out, allowing the powers of Britain, France, and America to take hold, which later payed off for him when they gave him the throne of Iraq. But he was a British puppet, nothing more than a face for the Iraqis to recognize while Britain raped them of their resources and attempted to keep them in the dark ages.

you know what? i really dont care about this whole thing, im happy just sittin here, playing 'puter games, eating pop tarts and watching cable tv, let all you anti-war nuts have all the fun you want.. oil, or no oil, who really gives a damn, Saddam needs to be gone, we cant send in a SEAL team cause of the Geneva convention which because of the start of WW1(assasination) we arent aloud to assassinate world leaders anymore.... let Bush have his fun, hes only there for a year or two more.. i know i wont be voting for him, but thats just cause i think hes an idiot being controlled by his dad and cabinet, i seriously dont think hes(Bush JR) making ANY of the decisions..

I'm perfectly happy here with my material objects as well, with the exception of not having enough DVD?s ;). But the reason we anti-war "nuts" do take the time to protest is because we're trying to save the world, as well as you, from getting a nuke shoved up it's ass!

I myself have been saying W's a puppet since day one and there's no way in Hell he could have been elected legitly. But I'm not going to let him "have his fun" , because thus far that has done nothing but limit our privacy and freedom in every medium of communication and information to make America more "secure" from some unknown enemy.

So in conclusion, I?d like to say: Drop Bush, not bombs! :thumb:

well we can always have the next president repeal all of georges junk, or you can goto the supreme court and have it ruled unconstitutional..

:D Heres one for ya.

Q:why do polish have no head and no neck.

A:When you ask them a question they shrug their shoulders up and keep them there and when you tell them the answer they smack the top of their head into their neck and shoulders.

Oww. Tip for getting shorter. :lol:

Q: You know why Disney World in France stopped their evening firework displays?

A: Every evening more then 400 french would surrender.

:P

Q: Why should we take the French with us to Iraq negotians?

A: So they can teach the Iraqies how to surrender.

you guys are terrible...  ;)

and clever.  :P

This thread has taken a turn for the racist, good job Joe. Its good to know that some people keep the stereotype of Americans as Racist pricks alive

...

If it was about oil, why didn't we take the Iraqi oil fields during the first gulf war, huh?

I was watching CBC and they sent some cameras down there to talk to the troops. One of them said that their orders are to move in and secure the oil fields

thats because saddam has a nice history of setting them on fire...

If your being invaded its not as if your going to make it easy for your invaders are you?

I have to say something here. Mojo, the polish joke was out of line.  The only reason we are making fun of the french is because through out history they have proven themselves to be all of the following:

Wussies, Barbarians, French, Shitheads to their liberators, Jerry Lewis Fans.

Any one of these are reason enough to burn the French. Burning the polish is an outdated practice that was used by middle class working men at the beginning of the 20th century to the 60's for suposedly "taking away jobs". Shame on you Mojo, shame. :angry:

Saying that the french are wussies ignores almost all of their history with the exception of the 1900 to 1950s

Yes, the French did not used to be this way, and I doubt all of the French people feel as Chirac does.  I do on the otherhand think this entire thread has gotten way off topic, but seing as the current topic has changed I might suggest that some of you ease off on the America-bashing here.  Mojo is definitely in the wrong for taking a swipe at Poles, but calling Americans "racist pricks" isn't casting anyone in much different light either.  Which Americans are racist?  The black ones?  The white ones?  Those descended from the American Indian?  Or from east India?  Hispanic Americans?  Or those who are a mix of many ethnic backgrounds?  America is a melting pot of many races, nationalities, and cultures, so how can an entire country, who allows all to vote regardless of race and hold jobs, be called racist?  It is ironic that if America is so bat that so many people want to get into the USA, and are willing to risk their lives on leaky rafts and barely seaworthy smuggling ships to do so, yet very few seem to want to get out?  That is, except for fools who think that camping out at power plants in Iraq, strumming a guitar like it's the 1960's again are going to offer much protection from a 2,000lb laser-guided bomb.  They know what they're in for, so I certainly hope nobody cries when they get gibbed all over the generators.  Oh well, I suppose that will cleanse a bit of stupidity from the human gene pool if they get blown up.  Darwinism at work, right?  I can't say I'm really pleased though.  I do not take pleasure in the loss of life, no matter how much of an idiot it is that happens to be attached to it.

The world is in a state where two things are certain right now.  The first is that Iraq is going to be invaded by the US, Brittish, and Austrailian militaries if Saddam doesn't go into exile, UN resolution or not, and no amount of protesting or political opposition from France, Germany, Russia, or China is going to stop it.  Countries I might add that have a much larger vested economic interest in Iraq than the US ever did.  It was France, after all, that sold Iraq the nuclear reactor that the now deceased Ramon blew up when Israel decided that Saddam with nukes was a bad idea.  It is Russia who arms Iraq with many weapons.  There are documented paper trails to all four of these countries who THEMSELVES are violating the very UN resolution that was imposed at the end of the Gulf War that was agreed to by Iraq as terms of surrender.  The UN sanctions (read:  UN, not US) were imposed because Iraq violated those terms.  Iraq kicked out the weapons inspectors the first time because Saddam obviously wanted to develop his weapons without their presence.  He wanted them out, now he wants them back in?  Let's be realistic here, that's a stall tactic and he's been leading them on wild goose chases since they've been back.  Now he's saying "Oh look, we found this so we'll let you have it" every time the heat is put on him?  Don't be naive people.  Saddam is stalling for time by "turning up" very minor weapons he DENIED having in the first place.  A shell here, a rocket there, but never anything substantial since that would damn him publicly to the world, and all of this because he knows that as long as he can stall for time and as long as the United Nations stays divided HE'S running the show, not them.  He's making a mockery of the United Nations, and the entire inspection process has become a keystone cops bughunt that it's not supposed to be, and now you have a handful of protesters (yes, a handful, not the hundreds of thousands the media would have you believe) all pointing fingers at the US and Brittain, specifically Bush and Blair, for having the guts to stand up and call a spade a spade and be willing to do something about it?  Let's review the facts here instead of the rhetoric, and see who's really to blame:

1)  Saddam invaded Kuwait, and was driven out by a coalition of nations, not just the USA, even if the US provided the bulk of the military arm of it.

2)  Saddam gassed the Kurds in the north with chemical weapon poisons and killed a LOT of people.  Regardless of where he got them, he used them on people in his own country.

3)  People who fled Iraq following the failed uprising against Saddam after the gulf war tell of over a hundred thousand people executed.  These are Iraqi nationals who have said this, and these were Iraqi people who were killed.

4)  Every defector from Iraq at present speaks of a desire of the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam.  THEY do not want him running their country.  Why should anyone else?

5)  The United Nations passed legally binding resolutions, 14 of them so far since 1991, declaring that Saddam has to get rid of ALL chemical, biological, and nuclear (if any) weapons and provide proof of this.  The most recent says Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it fails to comply.  This burden rests on IRAQ to show proof that it no longer has such weapons, as it has been repeated countless times, not for the US, Britain, or God-knows-whatever-land to ferret out what Saddam's hiding and show proof to the world that he's in violation.  The inspectors have themselves said they are NOT a detective agency and Iraq must cooperate fully with them.  Blix has indicated repeatedly that Iraq is being "less than cooperative."

6)  Iraq ADMITTED to having over 4000 TONS of VX nerve gas back in the 90's.  It takes only 1 drop to kill a full grown man.  Now they claim to be unable to provide proof of it's destruction since "that evidence was destroyed", and that's only the tip of the iceberg of what they claimed to have a few years ago and now are saying they do not have.  Are you willing to take them at their word?  Does this kind of weaponry in Saddam's hands, or worse, Al Qaida's, Islamic Jihad's, or Hamas's hands not disturb you?

7)  George Bush and the Bush Administration has been actively seeking UN support for enforcement of the resolution that was UNANIMOUSLY agreed to by the UN security council last year so far by diplomatic means with a military buildup as pressure and as a last resort if those means fail.  Obviously since diplomatic enforcement has failed military enforcement becomes the only alternative.  If war was the only desired option there would be no push in the UN for a consensus at all, even if it's the only remaing option at this point other than turning tail and going home.

8)  The only alternative to militarily removing Hussein and his weapons is to leave them in place.  Inspections DO NOT work, this was proven in the 90's when Saddam kicked out the inspectors (which he can just as easily do again if the US pulls anchor and goes home).  The end result of that is continued development of these weapons and their being sold to terrorist agencies who will use them on anyone, anywhere, even those opposed to war.  Also it will show that the UN is toothless and ineffective, as it has been at anything dealing with enforcement of resolutions for the past twelve years and counting.

9)  Leaving Saddam in power will embolden EVERY terrorist in the world, making the US and the UN, and all of Europe appear to be gutless cowards.  Potential terrorists only respect the threat of deadly force, and the only way terrorists can be "negotiated" with is at the end of a gun.  Dead terrorists can't hurt anybody anymore.  Live terrorists emboldened by perceived cowardice could then use biological agents to attack the world's food supply if armed by a rogue state, which would affect all nations, not just the US.  Mass famine is not a good thing.  Nuclear weapons in downtown NY, DC, London, Berlin, or Paris aren't much better, nor is nerve gas in a subway tunnel.

10)  The USA has exhausted every diplomatic channel with the UN security council to enforce their own resolution and now is left with the following options:  Enforce the resolution itself by invading and toppling Saddam now, risking casualties from chemical or biological weapons in the process, or allow him to continue in power to eventually develop nuclear weapons and face that kind of weaponry when he again attempts what he did with Kuwait, only this time with Israel, Turkey, Jordan, or who knows what other country in the crosshairs.  Saddam has attacked Israel before, and don't forget that Qusay is ten times WORSE than Saddam, and stands to inherit all that "daddy" has.  If Iraq attacks Israel, unprovoked, with nuclear weapons it WILL start a regional war, but this time with Israel declaring war on Iraq, followed by Arab states declaring war on Israel.  Say hello to WWIII, Israel DOES have nukes, over 400 of them, and they've admitted to this.  Taking out Saddam now could easily PREVENT this.  Does ANYONE like the idea of a regional war, possibly nuclear, in the middle east?

11)  If the protests against war are indeed against war, the quickest way to avoid war is if the entire world condemns Saddam's barbary and overwhelming world opinion and political pressure is leveled at him to step down and dismantle his weapons programs.  Since the world is instead divided, with the protestors intent only on attacking Bush and Blair, this only feeds Saddam's boldness to defy the UN resolutions and make a mockery of the entire system.  War is inevitable as a result of this, and the protests are only acting to divide the world, not unite it.  This is counter-productive to the goal of preventing war, and illogical if preventing war is the only thing desired.  Banners saying "Saddam disarm now, do it for your people", etc, have yet to be seen anywhere in any of these protests.  Just who is the bad guy here anyway in the UN's eyes?

History has a lesson, one that is often overlooked.  Often times the right thing to do, and what needs to be done at the time is unpopular at the time, but historically the world benefits in the long run from unpopular but correct action.  It is a test of character to take a beating and do what's right anyway.  Tony Blair understands this, I think that perhaps many nations in Eastern Europe understand this as well having been trodden over by the iron boot of the Soviet Union for so long.  Dictators intent on murderous conquest and oppression of liberty cannot be appeased or coddled, they can only be toppled.  They tried appeasement with Hitler in the 1930's, and the result was millions of people dead.  Saddam is just such a dictator.  Bush is not, contrary to some of the claims, since he can be replaced with democratic election.  Many have accused Bush of knowing beforehand about the 9/11 attacks, and doing nothing to prevent them.  I will not debate the validity of such accusations here, but now Bush knows about the threat Saddam poses, and yet when confronted with acting to prevent this, is again attacked.  I find no logic in this.  Saddam himself has shown Hitler and Stalin as his role models.  A former general who took part in the uprising against Saddam and later fled the country said he would get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say "Heil Hitler!" jokingly at himself.  No amount of negotiation or political pressure, even the threat of war and the resulting civilian casualties has changed Saddam's mind about what he wants to do.  Do you REALLY want this man in power?  Do you trust Saddam Hussein?  Would you want this man running YOUR country?  As for North Korea, there's an old expression that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Kim Jong Il is doing a lot of squeaking right now, and not much else.  Anyone ever think he might be bluffing?  He wants attention.  Saddam, on the other hand, is developing things covertly.  The loud braggart is all mouth, and is rarely a threat, however the stealthy assassin is lethal and intent on that lethality.  Keep this in mind when thinking about the difference between North Korea and Iraq.

I have some hard questions for you all.  To all those who do not like George Bush and his "unilateral" approach, what about Bill Clinton when the USA "unilaterally" launched attacks against the serbs, and parked aircraft carriers and, under Clinton's order, launched missiles "unprovoked" into Sudan and Afghanistan?  Where is the condemnation for that?  Where is the condemnation for the US under Clinton handing nuclear reactors to North Korea, if North Korea is now such a threat that everyone claims they are?  Where is the condemnation of Saddam Hussein gassing his own people with chemical weapons?  Or for invading Kuwait in the first place?  I've heard all the accusations leveled at the USA and George Bush in particular for misconduct and bullying, now I'm leveling MY accusations at all of you who are doing the accusing.  Where are the facts for your accusations?  I've laid out the generally accepted facts regarding Iraq, that is, accepted unless you're a member of the French, German, Chinese, or Russian parlaiments or are living in Wonderland somewhere.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder, after all.  Show us all the evidence of these conspiracy theories regarding the US wanting oil, and the US causing this and that, if you have any that is.  All I hear is words, angry words, and baseless words blaming the USA and George Bush for all the worlds evils.  Is it because Bush is rich?  Or that he's a Republican and not a Democrat?  Or because he does come from "big oil"?  Is personal dislike the root of these accusations?  Damn the country for the character of the King, so to speak?  Or is it because the USA is a rich and powerful country, the last super-power, and as such the "have-nots" of the world are jealous?  And if the USA and people like Bush are indeed evil, then I suggest you all take up your righteous swords and cut out this evil, since obviously you're in the right and the USA is as much a threat as, no, more of a threat to the world as the terrorists and extremists are.  But then who's to say you're right?  After all, if there is no "absolute right" then the USA is just as right for following its policies as you are for thinking it's in the wrong, isn't it?  Are you merely choosing targets of political convenience for your self-righteous moral high-ground?  That is, guilt by opinion and damn the facts unless you can fit them to match your preconceptions?  Funny, that mentality is often referred to as "lynch mob".  I would only ask you to examine your standards and see if you are applying them evenly to ALL of the variables here, or you run the risk of being guilty of the very things that you are accusing others of doing.

I am not attempting to absolve the USA of any past wrongs, history can be its own judge of that, nor am I defending Bush and saying he is completely blameless either.  All nations, and every individual on this earth has blood on their hands for one thing or another.  Still, there should be no "Oh yeah, but the USA did this" counterpoints to the above statements.  Justifying one evil by pointing out another solves nothing, and absolves neither of wrongdoing.  Answer me these questions honestly if you can.  Otherwise, think about the points I bring up if you're willing to let go of this apparent hatred for the USA.  I'm tired of seeing America bashed repeatedly for everything, along with Israel, so I'm going to take up my own gauntlet here and issue you this challenge.  If America is so wrong always as you say, tell me then, who is right in this?  And what would you have them do, if all that you are willing to do yourselves is nothing at all except accuse?  Complacency leads to slavery.  We would all be wise to remember that.  That is all I have to say about this.  End of rant.

I for one condemn all acts that lead to the loss of innocent life.  Party affiliation or financial status has little to do with it.  If a leader of a country has proven himself to be abusive and unfit to lead, then he most certainly should be removed from power.  However, war is not an answer, nor should it ever be.  I do not believe that economic sanctions are viable either.  I do not feel that a population should be punished for the actions of it leader.  We have destroyed water distribution systems in Iraq that served no militaristic purpose, robbing citizens of clean water.  What did this do to Saddam?  Anything?  Did he lack water to drink?  Somehow I doubt it.  The only thing our actions serve to do is anger entire countries, as the populace suffers from sanctions and shortages THAT DO NOT AFFECT THOSE WE SEEK TO PUNISH.

If Saddam was truly the problem, if his rule and his weapons were what truly motivated our desire to maintain a military force in the Middle East, then he would have been removed already.  I have plenty of faith in the ability of our armed forces to do the jobs they were trained to do.  We don't need ten, twenty, or thirty thousand people there to do it.

My solution, what *I* would choose to do, is simply have the man assassinated.  And don't give me that body double nonsese, I have more bullets at home than Saddam's got doubles.  I think we can manage.  I'm sick and tired of others suffering for a tyrant's folly, and I oppose the war.  I oppose all wars.

There, I'm done.  Flame away.

In response to twilight's assassination comment, i'd like to quote hedhunta...

I'd rather have the US violate the convension than put another generation of innocent iraquis through this crap

i do believe that the iraqis are long overdue for a break from the power struggle occurring beyond their control, between hussein and bush, however, we cannot violate the convention.

if we were to violate the convention, we would violate what little remaining trust the international community has left in us.  we helped to create that treaty, and to break our own word would make us no better than saddam or any other tyrannical dictator - doing what they feel is in the best interest of their country (or at least themselves), and to hell with the rest of the world.  the geneva convention is not a just a one-way shield intended to prevent other countries from doing anything that would threaten us, but also binds us to the same rules, offering the other countries protection from us.  after all, the other ratifying countries would not have signed the convention if they received no protection from it.

If the US goes to war without the UN approval that will break the UN no longer has it a reason for excistence as its not respected and its natures law in world politics

as it is now the UN is a way for the smaller nations that doesnt have a standing army of x millions and/or nukes to make their voices heard and also a way to settle conflicts through negotiations

the UN has an important function and thats why i am against USA-GB going to war on their own

i dont oppose war as i see the need but if it comes to war it has to be with the UN seal of approval thet makes it a legit war otherwise its the attacking nation that is the offender here and strange as it may seem not iraq
its called folkr?tt in swedish wich would translate to something like people/populationlaw/bill and governs the international relations and the crimes commited by a goverment such as genocide and offensive war

the reason i got upsett in the first place was for the silly bashing of the french and germans from the US media

Clinton did bomb kosovo serbia but the french had troops on the ground as did a lot of other european countries but the clinton administration refused as american casulties would have been unacceptable for the public oppinion at home

much like the vietnam war and the opperations in somalia were it was the american public that protested and the goverment pulled the plug

saddam has to go yes and as much as weed like we cant assasinate him as that would make it ok for other countries to try and axe each others leaders of and weed have ww3 anyway

saddam is a mad hatter and his sons isnt any saner. beeing the son of a dictator with absolute power does give you a twisted moral compass
the roman emperors was quite a strange group aswell
whenever power is herreditary and you forgett to instill the propper values into the next heir youre gonna have problems sooner or later

i dont belive that saddam will give up or that the un-weapon inspectors will find anything as he had have lots of years to hide them all

the sanctions only punish the weak that are already suffering under saddam
should they have to suffr under both the UN and saddam they hardly deserve it do they?

i can understand the french trying to protect their economical interests in iraq and if the US had any they would have done the same thing basicly as they have done with israel when they have been way out of line

and yes i am aware of the history of the region and what actually happened after ww2 but its a bit long and off-topic for now

to pho: i agree with you that saddam has to go BUT not with anyone starting a "righteous war" without the approval of the UN
the sanctions and weapon inspections are worthless
bashing the french politicians is fine by me but their army has nothing to do with this as they are a capable fighting force not as large as the amercian granted but not just a gang of wussies either

the french had partisans in ww2 just like greece and the polish i belive
partisans = geruillas

i wont go into the racist debate or the USA beeing such a great country ill leave them to others that find them worthwile and/or amusing

lol
just found out something funny about the docs about the wapons america   "says " they have
its actually some californian  students endwork of 10 years ago and there are even typing faults in it ..
mwhahha bush doesnt have a pot to piss in for a war aginst Iraq
and hey 2 things
1) if the people are nhapp with sadam they just have to move out of the country .
2)who cares if sadams rocket flies 150 miles further then normal .
I donthave to tell you guys how far I can piss or anything else .


godamnit
war is like a pokergame , dont let the others look into your card .
and sadam doesnt have to tell bush if he has some kings or queens in his cards .


stupid asses  ( talking about Sadam AND Bush)

ps scrapp he help of UK pho .
the people didnt want war in iraq and there was a iot.
the goverment of the uk had to low up there support in the war .

i assume you mean not happy? they would, except for the fact that as soon as they try  to leave they are generally shot..


along with pho, a nice little quote here : what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular..

Its kinda funny how a Dictator has managed to begin ripping the UN apart as Hitler a Dictator ripped the League of Nations apart ... in the sense that everyone is afraid to do anything, in WW2, America stayed out and we went to ww2, now were sitting here pulling our hair out trying to prevent Saddam from starting WW3 at a later date and everyones yelling at us.. funny how that works.. you get yelled at for trying to stop something, and if you do nothing and it happens you get yelled at for not doing anything.. i say, better safe than sorry..

the difference between saddam having a further-reaching rocket and you having a further-reaching stream of piss is that people don't die when you piss on them.  also, saddam is not just trying to have a pissing contest, as it were.  if he were, he'd be flaunting his chemical/biological/nuclear abilities, as well as the range of his rocket motors.  instead he attempts to hide them, only revealing a few minor ones to appease the UN weapons inspectors.

north korea is the one going for a pissing contest.  they're openly flaunting their nuclear capabilities, and the range of their rockets.  however, have you seen one fired yet?  no.  and you'll note that bush is (more or less) trying to maintain diplomatic relations with them.  in fact, last i'd heard, we restored food aid to north korea.  okay, so they want a pissing contest.  we'll play pissing games with them to make them happy, but at the end of the day, no one is hurt, and there are no imminent threats of war, express or implied (overlooking the threat north korea once threw up regarding the food aid, which we averted in a non-military fashion).

Telling the UN that it has lost any credibilty, going in without international approval, and having a leader that is more or less acts like a dick to the international community. Negotiating with North Korea but not Iraq, Continuing 3 billion dollars in funding for Israel, not to mention the past indescretions of the US government. I think any trust anyone had in the US government vanished long ago, but the first 3 things i listed there will do far more damage than violating the Geneva Convention, especially considering the US already did that with the "POWs which aren't POWs" in Guantanamo Bay Cuba


Who? Bush? At last check Iraq wasn't on the security council, thus doesn't have a voice like Germany did in the League

Pho.. you missed one country of the list that helped Iraq to acquire much of it's arsenal it has today: US. This is a well known fact.

Yes.. Saddam is quite a dictator, and has killed his own citizens (although  a  different racial group ones). I condemn that act. He might be a threat to the stability of the region, but doing what he did back in 1991 is not so probable anymore. It would be suicidal mission, and Saddam knows this.  


He has WMDs, and wants to acquire more of them. That's because A) Weapon inspections are a joke, cause US will attack to Iraq anyway. Saddam wants to have something to defend his country. The probable tactics used by British and US (disarm Saddam and then attack) is feeding this.  Why do I think they use this tactic? Because US had all the proofs before weapon inspections started, and it could have revealed them before they started, and proved that Iraq broke the UN resolution xxx by acquiring, producing and stockpiling WMDs. B) Israel has nukes and all kinds of WMDs, and no-one has ever cared about them, although the Israelis are quite militaristic ppl, and they start to resemble Nazis more and more. They also have right wing extrimists in their government. If I were Saddam or any other Islamic country leader, I'd be very worried about this and started my own weapon programs.

On a side note.. nuclear war in Middle East could solve the constant crisis in there.   :evil:  

Is war acceptable method for "liberating" Iraq from Saddam?  I really don't know that. It might even a good thing for the Iraqii ppl in the long run. Immediate effects are horrid, of course, but let's say after a few years it will be quite different place to live. Then again.. it's something of an outragous act from US IF UN doesn't accept the war. It's always the ones who make the dirty work that get disrespect from others.  

Bush has proven to be a more than a retard stupid leader. He did give money to Hydrogen car development, which is surprising and refreshingly good act from Bush :thumb: . I do hope it's more than a theatre. Then again..US did withdraw from ABM agreement, and didn't want to ratify Biological arms reductment program. US continues to develop nuclear weapons, and wants to deny it from others that are keen to have such weapons. This makes it morally uncondemnable for Saddam and other non-WMD countries to have such weapons.

I still dont get it how stupid bush is that he was waving with a " document over enemy artelerie" wich was actually from a californian student who made that as endwork in university

by this I wanna say something to bush

till now all the countys who normally would help america has fallen of because the people where against the war .
and if america was smart they would also come on the street and say " no more Wars !!"
because at that moment your loosy president should look at his people and listen to them.
and since its a democratie bush would have to recall his troops .
if he doesnt you finally see what kind of idiotic president you have who doesnt listen to the people .
after all its to people who make the country run . not the president .

Pho for once your gonna have to agree with me . on this one ;)

War is never good there is no true winner , only loosers no matter  who is fighting .
this includes every war exept star wars : Bart Simpson.

devlar, you tottally misread what i meant, i meant that the UN is falling apart because everyone is afraid of a war with saddam... theres so much disunity that it might as well be called 'DisUnited Nations' ... Germany didnt have a voice in the LoN, if they did they wouldnt have ended up with the short end of the stick with the Treaty of Versailles.   The league of nations fell apart because everyone was afraid of another war, the un will become the same if it doesnt start actually using force when its really necessary instead of only when it fits their agenda....



(now, you are going to say it fits bush's agenda to take out saddam because of oil..  i really dont think thats the case as much as the fact that bush might actually have it right that saddam should be gone..)

Let me point out that I said "Throughout history they have been these" I did not say that they are these all the time.

In defence of the French, I'd like to say that they have a beautiful country, and that they produce(ed) some of the greatest minds in history.

No one is afraid to go to war with Sadam, they just don't consider it their war. The only people Sadam is a threat to is Kuwait and Israel. Don't give me that connection to terrorism thing either, yes cause there's proof of that

The league of nations fell apart because Germany Veto'd any international call to arms against it (So did Japan). The fact that everyone was equal was what destroyed the league of nations.

I hope the US and its people are prepared to deal with the consequences of calling the UN irrelevant, since they could soon find themselves with the short end of that same stick. People will not tolerate Imperialism in this day and age. But then another cold war would be good for buisness right? and M.A.D. really wasn't an insane piece of political jargin that caused the entire world to live in fear. The only thing Bush is doing is telling the world that if you have nukes we'll leave you alone, but if you don't you'll end up like Sadam, so by all means get nukes quickly especially if your a dicator, like me. This type of policy will only end up good weapons makers, it will on the other hand totally screw the general population of the US who don't want anything to do with it but will ultimately be the casualties.

Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need one?

In defense of the french, the french weren't wussies at all during 1900-1950. They fought very hard in the trenches during WWI. When the americans joined WWI, the german army was already on its last reserves.
And in WWII, like Pepe said, the german army that manouvered around the Maginot line was just impossible to beat. Also, during that period it was the british expedition force in France that quickly evacuated back to England when the germans were approaching. If the French army didn't hold off the germans as long as they could, these british forces would have been captured and made POW.

IMO, all this rifle-dropping-stereotype-talking is just major bullshit.

It should also be remembered that the French underground was very courageous, and very determined.  It is only the current administration in France I think that needs to get their heads examined.  Every country and every people has their faults, no?

Devlar, what are you suggesting, that someone assassinate the current US President?  Have you completely lost your mind?   Were 3,000+ deaths on this soil on 9/11 not enough, now you want to add another?  Please tell me I'm mistaken in how I'm reading this! :(

iM WITH DVLAR ON THIS 1 .
(already bought my sniperrifle on ebay)

I seriously doubt that's a very good thing to imply games keeper. Even a small little comment like that would quickly be taken as a terrorist threat, they need all the scapgoats they can get you know.

/me remembers CNN trying to blame the space shuttle crash on terrorists  :lol:

well, go ahead and try to assasinate him with your airsoft sniperrifle, ill be watching the news and itll be funny when the secret service blows you away with their REAL rifles.. only to find that your only shooting 6mm bbs cause ebay doesnt allow the sale of real guns on theyre site..

No I have not, if it would help save the lives of thousands of iraquis, i believe it will be worth it. Unlike you Phoenix I am Machievellian in my poltics, Ends do justify means and in this case the one life of a extremist poltician is worth less than the thousands of lives he will destroy

Oh and for the record, my Lee Harvey Oswald remark is also directed at Sadam and Tony Blair. Although the way things are going for Tony, is we wont need an Oswald, just a guy who hands out pink slips.

What i find infinately more hilarous about Bush on the other hand is the fact that he claims that the americans will stay there until a Democracy is formed. Considering 80% of the people in Iraq are Muslim Fundamentalists who are very Anti-American and will see this as a Zionist lead occupation of their land, America will either be there indefinately or set up a puppet government which is far from democract *cough* Pinoche Ver. 2 *cough*

Oh GamesKeeper is lucky, he doesn't live in America, Or else Patriot Act II would have him kidnapped (arrested without charge) by the government

What?  The ends justify the means?  Alright then Devlar, if the ends justify the means, then the forced conversion of people to Christianity under pain of torture and death like in the inquisition is justified since it will in the end "save their souls".  After all, eternal damnation in hell is far worse than any pain suffered here, and if they don't convert then they were damned anyway so let's remove the unbelievers so they can't corrupt the population.

If the ends justify the means, then the forced conversion of people to Islam under pain of torture and death is necessitated since it is the will of Allah to cleanse the world of infidels and bring all to the true religion.

If the ends justify the means, then it's ok for someone to murder another person since if it will make their lives better.

If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to steal whatever you want from the rich since you need it and they have more money than you.

If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to destroy the environment of the earth "in the name of progress" since it will increase the material standard of living for all mankind.

If the ends justify the means, then it's ok for the military to secretly experiment on the civilian population since it will better prepare them for the next conflict.

If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to torture animals in the name of industry and medical science to make things safe for humans.

If the ends justify the means, then mass execution of certain ethnic groups, people of certain political or religious persuasion, or with certain mental defects is acceptible and necessary to remove these potential criminal elements from society before they can cause a problem.

If the ends justify the means, then those born with certain genetic traits, along with those born with defects should be put to death so those traits cannot be passed down to future generations, thereby improving humanity and bringing it closer to perfection.

If the ends justify the means then the use of secret police, espionage on civilians, and secret arrests and abductions are permissible in order to remove the threat of terrorism and political insurgents before they can act.

If the ends justify the means then the use of a preemptive war against a potentially threatening country is acceptible in the name of national security.  It's us or them, after all.

And lastly, if the ends justify the means then the invasion of Iraq and the killing of a few thousand Iraqi's is certainly acceptible if it means removing a tyrant dictator and his weapons of mass destruction before they can be used by terrorists on millions of Americans.  After all, it's ONLY a matter of numbers, what are a few thousand compared to a few million?

If this is your philosophy then how can you possibly object to what the US is about to do?  Is this what you really want?  Are some people's lives worth more to you than others?  That if you belong to a certain political persuasion somehow you're morally superior to others who aren't, and therefore more worthy to live?  Let's leave a ruthless barbarian in control of a county since it's morally wrong to wage war for any reason, and if a few thousand die along the way, well, they're all Muslim extremists and they weren't worthy anyway!  Why CAN'T we be more like the Nazi's, stamping out whoever we don't like or letting others oppress them for us!  Or how about more like Iraq, Saddam's not such a bad guy after all, he's only murdered a few hundred thousand people, and there are too many people on this planet anyway so what's a few thousand more?  Just so long as the US isn't doing it, we can't let those self-righteous Americans get their way now.  Let's impose OUR will instead upon the whole world since OUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY and these common plebeians don't know how to run their own lives!  It's ok for us to value one type of tyrant over another and cheer the cause of peace by supporting a murderer and proposing murder for another kind of "tyrant" since we don't like that one.  Let's tell everyone else how it has to be, and then smack them down and accuse them of being intolerant when they do the same thing to us, since obviously we know better.

Of course, if the ends justify the means, you only mean that it is YOUR ends that are justified, and nobody elses.  Yet you'll condemn anyone else who has this attitude, unless they agree with your political view.  What kind of standard are you keeping?  You think I somehow WANT a war with Iraq?  No, I do not.  Neither do a lot of soldiers over in the desert sand, but they have a firm grasp of what's at stake if they don't do their job.  What I want is for Saddam to step down and give up the bad stuff he has and let his people go, or else for his generals to overthrow him and say to the world "here, come take these evil weapons away" but except by some divine intervention I see no way either of these situations will happen, so desired or not, war IS going to happen.  It may not be right, but I do think it is necessary.  I do not believe that the ends ever justify the means unless the means are just as well.  Sometimes there is little choice in the matter when other alternatives fail.  Sure the US may be wrong, but I know that Saddam isn't right.  I do happen to believe in right and wrong, and yes, I believe in absolutes.  What I do not understand is that when you say there is no absolute right why then do you treat everyone else who disagrees with you or differs in political or religious affiliation like they're absolutely wrong?  Aren't they just as right as you since there is no absolute right as you've said?  I really do not understand your view of things.  I am trying to. :thud:

You say End Justifies the means but you forget the end I am refering to, the lack of loss of life is the end. So yes I would consider shooting Bush if it would create an end that causes less Iraquis to die, I would also do the same with Sadam. Two Ignorant lives or Thousands of Innocent ones, maybe Bush needs to rethink his End

The preservation of life is the end for a lot of individuals. I do not claim consensus, but in MY view that is the right way to go. The butchery of an entire generation of iraquis because of one man is ignorance in its finest hour and will not bring any stability to the region or to America itself in fact it just shows the Arab world that America really is out to get them

Yes you can claim that this type of mentality is what caused this issue in the first place, the idea of using premptive strikes for reasons of national security, but some people don't think through their ends. They assume everything works out, that is not what Machievelli ever had in mind when he wrote his Self Help book for rulers. If specify and narrow your end down to one single target and assume that everything will work out then Machievelli just rolls and extra time is his grave over your stupidity. If you take the holistic view, account of extrenious variables when deciding your end then you succede. The first is an example of American foreign policy, the latter is not.

Ok, I need to put in my opinion here. I am more right than left, mostly. In this case, I think Bush is just trying to accomplish what daddy couldn't do. Therefore, I stand next to Devlar in this matter.

Iraq hasn't made an aggressive move towards anyone, what right do we have to war with them. Honestly, give me one reason. And no, the U.S. government has proof isn't one of them because I haven't seen a shread of this fabled "proof".

This war is imperialism and I am not going to supposrt a war that is morally, socially, and politically unjustified. I just won't.

I agree that the preservation of life is desired, I desire that myself.  However, when there is cancer in a someone's body it must be cut out in order to save them.  Cut out the wrong part and the body is weakened, and the cancer grows.  If there is a cancer to be cut out, well, where that cancer lies is the question everyone seems to be in disagreement about.  Some creatures could even argue that humanity is a cancer to this world, so I suppose that depends on your viewpoint.  Mankind is quite unqualified to make these kinds of judgements.  That this situation would exist at all is an example of that.  It is out of our hands as to what is going to happen next I'm afraid, and yet also relieved.

actually this is a weird cancer pho because for me BUSH is the cancer and not sadam.
sadam is just an appendix but not a cancer like bush .

Erm.... the inspectors LEFT. On their own. They weren't kicked out, as the Bush administration wants you to think.


Erm... I guess you've been missing out on the news. MILLIONS of Americans, joining more around the world, went out to the streets and protested the war.

I cant comprehend the cancer& appendix statement to well....oh well.
Anyone think of what high chance of happening, if Bush/Suddam is asassinated? If that happens with Bush, might there be a push for the war effort after all, trying to stop it the first place righjt?  And Suddam, who takes over when he is gone? Someone maybe a bit worse then himself in the first
place?

Well why did the inspectors leave then?  They just get tired and go home or what?  As far as protests numbering millions of people in the USA, where do you get your numbers?  That's about as believable as the "Million Mom March" that turned out to be more like 100,000, many of them paid activists.  Sure, there may be a few million world-wide protesting, but not several million in the USA from the accounts I've heard to date.  For the record, here are the sponsors who funded the protests at Berkley just recently:

Socialist Party USA
Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER)
Move On
New Communist Party of the Netherlands
Green Party USA
The progressive Common Dreams
Free Palestine Alliance
Workers World Party
Partnership for Civil Justice
Nicaragua Network
International Action Center
Muslim Student Association of the U.S./Canada
Kensington Welfare Rights Union
Mexico Solidarity Network
Ramsey Clark - former U.S. Attorney General
American Muslims for Global Peace
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
International Action Center, NYC
Deputy Ambassador-at-Large, Haiti
Muslim Student Association of Richland College, Dallas, Texas
Al-Awda Palestine Right of Return Coalition
Muslims Against Racism and War
Simmons College Feminist Union
International Family & Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Left Turn
Heidelberg Forum
Retired Admiral, German Navy, Germany
AFSCME Local 1072
African Immigrant and Refugee Coalition
Dominican Workers Party, NYC
District Council 1707 AFSCME, NYC
National Lawyers Guild
Muslim Student & Faculty Association
transgender author and Co-Founder, Rainbow Flags for Mumia
UFCW Local 27, Baltimore, Maryland
Brooklyn Greens, Brooklyn, New York
Cuba Advocate Newsletter
SAFRAD Somali Association
Arab Cause Solidarity Committee, Madrid, Spain
Anti-Imperialist League, Belgium
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, California
California Prison Focus

Socialist Party USA?  Communist party of the Netherlands?  I guess we have some idea of just who is protesting, hardly the American majority.  Nice to see how such a "grass roots" protest needed so much damned HELP to get organized!  Millions indeed, heh.

Yeah social democracy is on the rise, its about time too, I've been getting a bit angry at the Right Wing lately, especially after Patriot Act 1


Well not everyone can sell their souls to oil tycoons and get the money for their politics

 http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/134.html (http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/134.html)

Well, how about these individuals then?  Not all, but some of them sold their own people down the river and cut their throats to gain their fortunes.  I'm sure Saddam, Yasir, and Fidel use ALL that money to feed their poor starving people too, RIGHT?

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228...28-22388785.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228-22388785.htm)

And it looks like those Iraqi's are a bit more willing to embrace democracy than you might think.  If almost all of them defect, then where are the thousands and thousands dead going to come from, hmm?  Maybe we should just send over a bunch of Italian film crews so they can give up peaceably and nobody gets hurt!  If the enemy doesn't shoot back people don't get killed, so I guess that rules out the normal army in Iraq, and leaves the Republican Guard and Saddam's nutcase loyalists who of course are hiding their units in and around civilian polulation centers like the cowards they are, ensuring mass casualties.  But then, that's the goal, isn't it?  Keep your troops safe because you KNOW the "good guys" won't bomb civilians deliberately.  It's bad PR.  And people call the US barbaric, this man doesn't give a damn about his own people!  Why does anyone continue to tolerate this man remaining in power?  If you think Bush is a right-wing dictator fine, he can be replaced next year with a left-wing dictator if you like in the presidential election, who will assuredly sell the freedoms of the US down the river oh so much quicker but since he'll be a leftie I'm sure he'll be more pallatable and AT LEAST he can be elected.  Whether you love Bush or hate Bush, it does not concern me.  I make no idols out of human leaders, and the politics of this world never cease to disgust me.  I can't believe how anyone can keep on defending Saddam Hussein like he's some kind of "victim" here when this man's tactics and mentality are clearly as wretched as the conditions he subjects his own people to in order to maintain his own power, yet I see and hear about this kind of thing day after day after day.  What justice is left in this world, when murderes run free.  Protesting in the US is easy, you can do so at any time.  It's called constitutionally guaranteed liberty.  I DARE someone to go to Iraq and protest.  You'll be shot, have your tongue cut out, or worse.  Let's see people cry out against Saddam in his own country!  Oh yeah, they can't do that can they.  It would certainly take courage, something that seems lacking in the world anymore.  It's easy to speak out in countries where freedom guarantees that right to speak.  It's a pity that not all the world has such freedom, but how can it when people like Saddam are left in power.  Who here likes Saddam Hussein and thinks he's ok if he's left alone?  Who here thinks that freedom and democracy bought with blood is worse than oppression ruled by bloodshed?  Is buying peace with a gun worse than living under the peace OF the gun where maybe the crimerate is down under perpetual martial law but any wrong move gets you dead?  Can I see a show of hands?  

hey pho you americans arent that rich either he.
if you guys can affort a small apartment with 2 its awesome .
even here it aint that bad .

with other words every country has money problems .
some bigger then others .
we have deptsmore then 1000000000$
and the US has even bigger depts

and pho do you dare to go to bush and hit him on the face .
dont think so .

Speaking your mind is one thing Games, physically assaulting someone is another. :idiot:

Yes there have been socialist dictators, there have been dictators of every shape size and color, your point?

Iraquis will not get democracy out of the US, like I've said before the population consists of 80% anti-american muslims, and America is just going to create a democracy? AHAHHA. Well unless you consider Chilie's Pinoche a democratically elected leader, or the Shah of Iran for that matter. Yes they were both democractic and elected by the people....of the american government

I'd like them to do this once america instates its "democracy"

er.. they wont be shot or silenced if they protest when we put a democracy in ....  so your comment is baseless and makes no sense.. can you explain to me or link me to where you get this 80% anti-american stuff.. cause last time i checked SADDAM controlled what people think, eat, drink, piss.. in Iraq..


OH YEAH! i forgot, in afghanistan, i heard the same thing, "[insert high percent here] anti-american population ... but what, isnt there a democracy there now? and a shitload of happy, now UNOPPRESSED people living there now? ... whoa.. and i thought america didnt do anything right..

Uhh, no, Afghanistan was already in internal strife at the time that America attacked. There was resistance, 2 Large groups in fact, One Democratic, one loyal to the exiled KING of Afghanistan, you know the guy who became an appointed President. Oh and when was the last time you heard any news of any kind come out of that regon with the exception of the occational assination of yet another one of Karsai's helpers?

At last check the only resistance to Sadam did rebel during Desert Storm, and the americans left them there to be gassed. Remember the Kurds?

EDIT - I forgot one extra thing, Sadam banned the Muslim name system a while back in order to keep the zealots out of his government so I doubt the Fundamentalists really like him either but you have to remember one thing for the average arab in the middle east it works like this America = Israel and they aren't going to tolerate what they see as a Zionist invasion of their land.

Hey look,
South Korea Really DOES still like us :P

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...l&e=10&ncid=996 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030228/168/3dth0.html&e=10&ncid=996)

EDIT: oops, no.. that's KISS.. but ill leave it there for fun.. The real South Korea link is here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ml&e=7&ncid=996 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030301/168/3e275.html&e=7&ncid=996)

Like Pho said, just because people protest, and it's publicized, doesnt mean it's a majority opinion...

Hell, people protested, and still protest, Charlie Manson's being incarcerated..

Let me give you another thought of mine, As an american living in Europe:

Americans, in general, don't care. We're lazy. Simple as that. so as long as something doesnt affect us Directly, we can be easily swayed to say 'yay' or 'nay'. To your avarage US citizen, Europe and the middle east might as well be on the moon. "Hell, i'll never be going over there, why should i care about it, as long as a jet doesnt crash into my house, i'm happy" was something that a friend of mine back home said when i was back there recently... Which i don't agree with.

America also doesnt care about whats not on the news... simple as that..

INSERT:
For example, a few months ago, there was a big hubbub on the news about 'child abductions', that topic got REAL big for like 2 or 3 weeks.. Millions of dollars from private AND government funds got sent to a Few specific profiled news cases. (everyone knows about that little girl taken while her sister was still in the room right?)

However, Before that, and after that, child abduction rates have basically stayed the same.... so what about little sally who was abducted yesterday?? Where's her family's million dollars to help try to find her... oh yeha.. thats right.. it's NOT POPULAR anymore... so sorry, even though you're a white, middle classed family with 2.5 children just like the other 'profiled' families on the news.. you get jack shit, because the public got bored of that and moved on to something else...

So, if it's not on the news, americans dont care...

And BTW, the american media doesnt care about 'ethical' news.. they're all for the Shock factor & ratings... so, once america changes the channel on something like that, they drop it and look for something else.

Saddam wasnt getting press coverage during the clinton years, so noone cared about him, or the weapons inspections..It was all about "THE STAIN ON THE DRESS". How many millions of US taxpayer dollars went to that DNA testing on the damn dress?? hmm?? Alot, because that was what was 'popular' at the time.. so there was no pressure to do anything about saddam.

Now that america has gotten its taste of 'yeha! we kicked those raghead's asses' they're also saying 'well, hell,. while we're at it, and over there, lets take care of this too'.

Personally, I dont think the war is necessary. I actually think we should pull out of the desert al together, and just play defense at the US borders... but thats just me.

People are all like 'pull out of the middle east, you're not needed there' But i can guarantee you, if we cut all ties to everything in the middle east, there would be countries Crying to get us back there within months.... it's a loose/loose situation, as the worlds remaining superpower, we have to play babysitter to everybody... and we get yelled at for it, but if we didn't we'd get yelled at as well....

/me invests in a bomb shelter and 100 years worth of canned food.

Phoenix, I am SICK AND TIRED of that tactic of trying to nail protesters and other dissenters as a buch of  "commies".

You know what I saw at my local protest?

Largely middle-class, who happen to make up the majority of the country, by the way. There were also anti-war Veterans. Then, there's the always predictable group of college students.

Not a single communist nut in sight.


Oh, PLEASE.
NO ONE is defending Saddam here. It's mostly the fear of regional/global chaos that's getting people to protest Bush's invasion. Not to mention the fact that they don't want American and Iraqi lives lost in a mindless slaughter.
And to those who feign support for the Iraqi people with all that "Saddam is bad, gassed his own people" stuff in order to justify invasion, tell me: Where were you BEFORE Gulf War 1 (When he DID gas a bunch of Kurds)? And by the way, Kuwait was never "liberated" - They're under a monarchy, and women there have LESS rights than women under Saddam.

Oh, and if you actually CHECKED, Hed, there is NO democracy in Afghanistan. It is controlled by feuding warlords, with a weak central government in Kabul. And conditions aren't much better than with the Taliban in power, either. Women are STILL in Burka for fear of being raped! And Bush is doing ZERO about this - just check the budget, and you'll not see one mention of the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

And Dev, actually, the King did not become president. Hamid Karzai did. But go look up his history and you'll see "UNOCAL" written all over it.

And I should tell you the principle that NO ONE CAN IMPOSE DEMOCRACY on a population. It HAS to be the action of the people.

Assamite.. you have wise opinions  :thumb:

:hail:  :hail: al say hail assamite :hail:  :hail:

I'm left wing and proud of it, also I'm not Anti-America, I'm Anti-Stupidity which makes me Anti-Bush.

My mistake Assamite

I ask you now this, why aren't we invading Saudi Arabia?

I'm also what most would consider lefty. But I know that RIGHT-WINGERS as well as Centrists should oppose Bush, as well. His policies screw a vast majority of the world's population, regardless of ideology. I mean, who doesn't NOT want to be blown to bits?

And that one last question seems rhetorical to me...

And thank you, guys. ^_^

Case in point
Patriot Act
and this coming october
Patriot Act II, now the government can kidnapp you, legally

Assamite, how can you call it dissention?  People are constitutionally guaranteed the right to assemble and protest peaceably in the United States.  Hell, they let people RIOT in downtown Cincinnati for crying out loud, I'd hardly call the peace protests "dissention".  Dissention means you don't sit in the back of the bus and get thrown in jail for it.  THAT is dissention.  The anti-Bush.. er, I mean anti-war protesters are expressing a political opinion, albeit quite visibly and quite loudly, but that's all it is, an opinion.  It's no different than if a bunch of people got up and marched in the street with "Bomb Saddam" signs, or the "Sodamn Insane" shirts people wore during the Persian Gulf War.  It's no different from people with the Osama rifle and pistol targets, or a boatload of bumper stickers saying this or that.  Yes I know not ALL peace protesters are commies, but I just felt I should point out that the protests at Berkely WERE bankrolled by the above groups.  Whether that fact offends you or not, as I've learned a long time ago, if you want the truth follow the money.  Besides, I'm all for peace myself!  I just differ in the fact that I think it's going to take military action to insure it in the short term.  Long term, I doubt it.  Humans will always war unless God or some other higher power, aliens, what have you decides to put the smack down on you all, make you play nice, and vaporize/brainwash/send to hell/reprogram people when they decide not to.  I never said I liked the fact that war seems inevitable, but I do understand the consequences for complacency and inaction when faced with a threat.  In the field of battle anything can get you killed, especially doing nothing, and acting wrongly often times is less damaging that inaction in the long term.  The question is, are you willing to act?  There are two types of people in the world and both usually have ideals.  There are those who will pick up a rifle and gun down a bad guy before they or someone else get shot themselves, and those who will die empty handed from cowardice or worse - sell out their countrymen so that they can continue to live.  The only difference between the two is the latter as a result gets a lot of OTHER people killed, like his family.  War may not determine who is right, but it does determine who is left.  There are a lot of dead pacifists in the world, and not one of them has ever led to lasting peace, nor were they left calling the shots when the bombs stopped dropping.  Ideals are good things, but there comes a time when ideals can get you killed.  Peace at any cost often has the highest cost, that of servitude and slavery, that of unchecked oppression and misery for all of mankind.  The question isn't whether or not you're willing to die for your beliefs, but rather, are you willing to kill to protect them?  That's what America did in Afghanistan, right or wrong, and what it's about to do in Iraq.  Sounds terrible, doesn't it?  Well I've got news for you, EVERY nation does this, including France, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Mexico, Nicaragua, you name it.  If this was not true, volunteer military forces would not exist.

Now as far as the US throwing the Middle East into chaos, people were saying that before the US invaded Afghanistan, which would not have happened by the way if a bunch of these extremist "religious fanatics" hadn't flown AIRPLANES into the World Trade Center and Pentagon!  And don't give me the excuse that if the US hadn't been so supportive of Israel that all of this wouldn't have happened.  The US gives aid to Egypt, the US buys oil from Saudi Arabia, so the US supports these nations too.  You think it would have made a difference?  What would have made a difference is if Pretty Boy had TAKEN Osama when the Sudan had him wrapped up like a birthday present, but NO, does Clinton get any of the blame for any of this?  If the US pulled it's money out of Saudia Arabia and started drilling in it's own reserves (which it won't since it's not appealing to the environmental lobby, and frankly I must agree with them there - you need better energy sources ) or else buying more oil from Russia then Saudi Arabia would have NOTHING.  They NEED the money from the US, that's also why the US maintains good relations with Arabia and why they let the US maintain a military presence there.  The US protects a vital oil supply that it depends on, and the rest of the world as well, and in exchange the Saudi's don't have to worry about someone else picking a fight with them.  It also helps to encourage the Saudis to reign in some of that anti-western and anti-Semitic extremism.  Don't forget that Bin Laden and most of these terrorists are FROM Saudi Arabia as many have noted, and part of the reason the US maintains a military presense there and why Saudi Arabia tolerates it is to KEEP people like Bin Laden and Saddam from overtaking the country and using it as a base of operations for their terrorist network.  The US government isn't the only player on the board who likes oil, after all.  Could you imagine the consequences if Bin Laden had control over Saudi Arabia and all it's oil wealth?  You have ANY idea what kind of carnage they could bankroll that way?  That's part of the concern with Iraq.  Since Al Qaida is out of Afghanistan, the hornets will light and nest somewhere else, and Iraq is very attractive at the moment.  This will happen again, and again, and again unless the pressure on Al Qaida and states who finance terrorists is kept up.  Don't forget Iraq pays $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.  That is state-sponsored terrorism.  That alone makes Iraq a target for the US, damn the UN resolutions.

Stability in the region is AMPLE reason to replace Saddam with someone more friendly to US interests until that nation can run itself without people like Hussein in charge.  If 80% of the Iraqi's are indeed Anti-American Muslim extremists, then what the hell is anyone griping about?  You think they're all cozy with Europe either?  You know how many Al Qaida operatives have been caught in England and Italy of late?  What a better way to keep an eye on your enemy then to get RIGHT in their faces?  But then, I don't buy into this 80% of all Iraqi's are Anti-American extremists, but then I'm not an anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigot either.  I happen to like Arabians and Egyptians as a rule, call it a part of my heritage if you will, and I have nothing against Islam.  Afghanistan is just beginning to taste of freedom, so expecting things to be perfect by this point is pathetically short-sighted.  People tend to forget that change like this does NOT happen overnight, and no it is not always successful.  I won't dispute that fact, since every attempt at world peace has also failed over the last hundred years or more.  That doesn't mean that people aren't going to try.  If Afghanistan can be stabilized and the terrorists rooted out then that can happen in Iraq as well, IF it is handled right.  My only complaint about that operation in Afghanistan is that the ground commander was an idiot and didn't seal the border with Pakistan.  Instead he relied too much on the locals to do the job since the world, and the American populace in general, has been conditioned under the last decade to expect bloodless video-game sterility in current and future wars.  You don't win battles by lobbing 400 cruise missiles into Baghdad or dropping bombs over Yugoslavia without getting your hands in the dirt and rolling the tanks in.  They didn't even START to get real results until they laid off on the precision munitions and started carpet-bombing the spork out of them in the mountains.  I'm sorry, those are all strategic blunders I'm having a hard time forgiving either administration of.  This whole mess with Iraq wouldn't have been a problem for the last 12 years if the operation was completed then, but instead the UN, Bush Senior, and Clinton all thought it would be nice to just "contain" the dictator and only slapped him back from the border and told him to play nice.  Chop off the hand and the body lives on.  Chop off the head and it doesn't.  If you're going to fight a way halfway, don't even bother.

Now, regarding kings... so what if Kuwait has a king?  So does Jordan.  So does England!  Well, a Queen anyway, but you get the idea.  Most presidents are like kings, and most countries have either a president or prime minister in which a lot of power is vested.  I'm not against monarchial rule, the world had it for thousands of years, so long as the monarch is just.  But then, whether a president or a king, or a committee, when are humans ever just?  That is the problem, isn't it?  There will always be some degree of oppression so long as humans are in control of this planet.  As for imposing democracy on a people, do you not think the people want to have a voice?  Democracy is a good thing, and everyone wants their say, but it is only good to a point.  The problem is that people, the majority that is, are often VERY wrong when it comes to some great and important issues, especially those that involve world stability and security of nations.  This forum is an example of that.  I can imagine this kind of debate going on during the Cuban missile crisis.  And how was that resolved?  By LEADERSHIP, by a strong-willed president.  JFK would roll in his grave to see what a mockery the democratic party in the US has become.  No matter what anyone here may think personally of Bush, I can guarantee you one thing.  He knows a hell of a lot more about the potential consequences of a war in Iraq, positive and negative, than anyone here including myself since he has a lot more access to real intelligence data.  He also has the resolve to do what he says he's going to.  Think I'm wrong?  Then tell me how they managed to nab the number 2 Al Qaida guy just today.  I remember very much a certain US president saying that they would "hunt them down one at a time".  Seems to me like they must be doing something right.  As for making such intelligence information available publicly in a "real democracy", well, you can imagine what the terrorists would do with THAT.  It's a trade-off.  You have to determine how much you trust your leaders to act in your best interests versus how much of a hand you want to have in it yourself.  The risk of this trade-off of course, is the threat of tyranny by one's own elected leadership, but then, that's a risk you have to take.  Sometimes acting in those interests means doing what appears to be unpopular or wrong at the time.  It is a heavy burden for a leader to know things they cannot tell the common public, then choose to act unpopularly because the consequences of not doing so are unimaginable.  It takes courage to act unpopularly, especially when it can be political suicide.  Look at Tony Blair, he was Mr. Popularity during Clinton's administration, and he finally grew up and became a good leader.  But then, the English always did have a good amount of common sense to them.  I salute them for standing up the the EU as long as they have over a great many things.  If invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power will in the end remove a real threat and make the world safer in the eyes of the US Government as well as the governments of England, Spain, and a whole flock of countries in Eastern Europe then I expect that's what the US will do, morally right or not.  I guarantee you any other country who believes their national interest was in jeapardy would do the same, that is, if they had the military might to do it.  When the US sits on the sidelines it's accused of being isolationist.  When it acts on the world stage it's accused of being interventionist.  When it acts in ways that might be damaging to certain countries politically it's accused of everything in the book.  The US is wealthy and powerful, and is unique in the fact that it has the ability to act against it's aggressors with impunity.  It also has the ability to cause terrible destruction in the world, or to prevent it.  That power invokes jealousy, and envy, and revulsion all at once.  To me it's really a simple case of the have's and the have nots, the will's and the will not's, the can's and the cannot's.  Every country who's opposing the US right now knows not to pick a fight with it in the end because the US is the one remaining super power in the world, both milirarily and economically.  The US threatens either sanctions or military force and you watch as countries crawl to their master, begging and pleading, after either take place.  Even Russia understands this.  After all, they got their asses KICKED in both the cold war AND Afghanistan, the former because Communism doesn't work, and the latter because the US armed the Afghans with those wonderful shoulder-fired rocket launchers we hear so much about lately.  The Russians said to the US "don't do it, you can't win in Afghanistan, look at us" when the US went in, and who was it that got creamed?  I still see the Capitol and White House intact, yet the Taliban are kind of scarce right now.

I'm sure the conspiracy theories are flying right and left about Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Total Information Awareness, etc.  I've read a lot of stuff over the years, nasty legislation from both the left AND the right.  As I've said before, humans always lust for power, and those in power desire more of it.  Pen the sheep and the wolves will circle, wound the sheep and the wolves will frenzy.  This day is no different.  Everyone thinks it's going to be the end of the world when things like this happen, they were saying this back in WWII.  Just recently for the right wingers it was Hillary, Bill, and Reno taking away all their guns and implementing an Orwellian secret police in the form of enhanced no-warrant wiretaps by the FBI, electronic eavesdropping via TEMPEST technology and Carnivore-ish email snooping, and black helicopters were everywhere.  Seen some of those myself actually, you know painting them black does help the US Army to be harder to see at night... :rolleyes:   People were waiting for the guys with gasmasks to kick their doors down and haul them off to secret camps at 3 am.  To the left, it's Corporate Big Brother with the evil Republicans selling out everyone's rights to big business and setting up roadblock checkpoints, people disappearing at airports, and Orwellian secret police again, etc, in the name of "National Security".  I've heard all this and much more over the last two decades, with phantom Gestapo around every corner just waiting to get you.  How much of it is true and how much of it is paranoid rantings?  If you ask me it seems like BOTH sides are afraid of the same thing - losing their freedom to someone who thinks differently then they do.  Funny, sounds like what the terrorists want to do to people, and by running around scared of the Big Bad Republican in the white house right now you're doing a damned good job of playing into their hands.  If you think Bush is a bad guy, don't re-elect him in 2004, simple as that.  If you're not a US citizen, well, you've no business making US policy then.

I will say this though, don't ever underestimate Bush.  If you think he's an idiot you're playing right into his hands.  He's extremely calculating in both politics and in how to rally the American people.  He's trounced the Democratic opposition on issue after issue politically.  He's played them like a second-string fiddle for the last three years and now the Democratic party has no issues to run against Bush on except Iraq, which got them how many seats in the Senate in the last election?  He knows how to give them just enough to get their hands out onto the table right before he slams them into putty with a sledge.  Bush is forward thinking enough politically to support the development of environmentally friendly vehicles when most ultra-conservatives are bowing down and all but worshiping their gas-guzzling over-macho SUV's.  He's supporting, at least on the outside, AIDS research to help people in Africa, and how much did the last administration do for that problem?  Oh, and to the Lefties who are against the war, maybe you should read this little piece when you consider who you really want for president in 2008:  http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm)  I'd say unity is OBVIOUSLY the order of the day in the Democratic party anymore when you have Hillary "agreeing" with Bush here, so which one of them is being dumb like a fox?  What does Hillary know that's of political benefit to her by following this path which should be political suicide if this isn't what America really wants?  And what does Bush know that is making Hillary support his views?  Whether you agree with me or not on the issues of the day, I have been a student of human character for quite a long time, and I'm seldom wrong when it comes to motivations.  I have a very firm grasp on how people behave, and Bush is behaving exactly as I've expected him to.  He's played along with the UN, "doing it the right way" while building up the troops to do what was intended anyway.  The end result is Saddam is removed from Iraq, and the UN is discredited as an ineffective body at making world policy, of which it is ineffective anyway considering how much of a mess things are in as it is.  The US position on the world stage is strengthened if the war is successful as a result, of which I have little doubt it won't be given the amount of hell that will be unleashed in the opening concerto and some of the new weapons being brought to bear against Iraq, not to mention the expected defection of Iraqi soldiers, helped along by some nice psych ops equipment that will be used in case they're not quite convinced of the need to surrender.  A successful war in Iraq following the "we went through diplomatic channels, we tried after all" approach is also a damned good re-election platform.  I'd hardly call that stupid considering since what happened 9/11/01 is still in the background.  Wait for the stock market to take off sometime after this is all over as well, and I guarantee he'll be re-elected.  Right or wrong, for good or for ill, underestimating what George W. Bush is capable of is a grave error, and if you consider him to be your enemy, then doubly so the error is upon you if you judge him to be slow of mind.  Whether he believes in everything he's thrown before the American people or not, or if it's just re-election strategy, it's very well thought out to date, and from a historical perspective I see very few mistakes in this pattern.  He may truly be a saint and a good Christian following his convictions, or he may even be the devil himself in disguise as some of you seem to think.   To me if the latter is true, and I do not discount this, it is certainly a reason not to underestimate him.

This all being said, and quite lengthely as I tend to be, I would ask one thing of you who think that war in Iraq is the wrong solution to this problem.  Offer up your solution to this.  Tell me what should be done with Saddam Hussein.  Should he be toppled, and if not by the US, then by who?  Should the inspectors go back in and play keystone cops again, with Saddam leading them around to tilt at yet more windmills, teasing with a missile or two or three to keep them happy while he keeps building what he's said he's had before, yet then denies, and says "oops look what I found" later?  A liar once, a liar twice, will inspections work now after having failed for how many years?  Or should he just be left alone to do what he wants and damn the consequences, like was done with Bin Laden for so long?  Tell me your solution.  I'm all for avoiding war if it's even possible anymore, so offer up something novel that will really work.  Maybe send it to your leaders.  You want to make a difference in the world?  Since we all seem so good at talking, well, speak up!  I know you will. :D

boycot

This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, how can dissention exist? What I don't like is how every president since Jimmy Carter has been a control freak of one kind or another.

i read up on the patriot act thing, and i have a question for you all: why are you all up in arms about ? it only harms those that are performing criminal acts anyways... sooo, unless you are a terrorist or something, i didnt see any problems with it..

Now for another episode of the quoting game...

So shut up and take it right? Don't protest, don't do anything, let the government wipe their feet on your face if they like. That's very VERY dangerous ground for Democracy. If you have a problem with the Democracy in its current form then it is your Bloody obligation to do something about it. Charles II is a prime example of that

Yes, protests are bankrolled by Leftists. But then who bankrolls Bush? That's a crude truth isn't it?


Yet somehow we have all those protests and protesters that claim they don't want this war. Maybe we should change the "Humans" to "Tony Blair" and "George Bush" cause I sure as hell don't see anyone going out of their way to support this


Geez, so now my anti-war association will get my family killed? Jesus Christ that almost sounds directly out of one of those conservative talk shows where idiots ramble on for 20 minutes about how all the protesters and all those dumb enough not to stand with president Bush should be gassed in Camps. Oh I love the conservatives, maybe they'll come up with a new theory about the size of liberals brains in the jewish community... oh wait they already did...

Time to change the "does" to "did", at last check I don't see Poland invading Germany because they took some land to them that was part of Poland 500 years ago. The past is the past, what we should be worrying about is the NOW part. We can't claim that its okay for someone to do something now because someone else did it then, i mean that's insane and all it leads to is more senseless violence.

Your kidding right? I mean that IS the only reason this happened. Yeah you give money to arab countries, ones that are in the hands of just as bad dictators as Sadam. But the reason for the hatred has and will continue to be Israel and American Imperialisitic Foreign Policy.

What would have happened if George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan had not given money to Osama Bin Laden in the first place?

Good Relations? AHAHAH maybe with the fat head's of state sure but with the common man who generally urinates on the american flag on the streets you don't have such great relations. The only reason they tolerate the american presence is because the people who get run the army get paid off. Pure and simple, then the military leader can go and retire with his fine american dollars to some place like florida and not care about popular opinion or the deaththreats he gets for allowing the troops to station there. Just look at Turkey. Its International Bribery at its most obvious

I think that sentence speaks for itself, anything I say will only take away from the awesome magnitude of insanity it holds

OR by photos and irrefutable evidence. JFK would slap the hell out of Bush for his going to the UN with "cell phone" conversations that could have been made in the basement of the local Radio Shack.

Yes this intelligence data that seems to exist but no one wants to share it about Iraq, oh yeah give me a goddamned break. If they really had proof that was so important that they can't let the public know they would have shown it to the UN behind closed doors and everyone would be on side.

Yes they got their asses kicked by their own people, not by the Americans

If they lived in a dictatorship then they'd have the right to think that but in a democracy its not conceivable to think of one group having ideological power over another. The Patriot act is just an excuse to turn Bush into Sadam

Skipping Crazed Unwanted Love for the Republicans

Shoot him, very simple, don't march an occupy an entire reigion that hates your guts, send in a few troops under the radar. Assassinate him and his cabinet, and let the people of Iraq sort it out. It sure beats commiting a Genocide on an entire generation of people with bombing runs, and occupying them. At last check there wasn't a single occupation that didn't end badly for the occupier, just as Britian in the American Colonies.  I'm certain that the international community would be much more open to a plan that doesn't force American Imperialism on the region and that doesn't look like an Oil Grab, which this current Admninistrations plan does quite effectively

Did you notice the wording? The legal wording? SUSPECTED TERRORIST, so the government can suspect anyone they want, even if they really aren't anything other than a terrorist on paper, without due process and tap their phones, read their email, filter their toilets and do a whole lot of other things that would make Richard Nixon blush. Yes that's the land of the free for you, I'm sure George Orwell wants to jump out of his grave and remind people that 1984 was a image of something that he didn't want to happen, not a planning guide...

This concludes this portion of the program...

DDR wasn't so bad after all, was it? They just tortured, punished and even killed "enemies of the state". Ok.. that was a crude example, but the problem is that it is possible to use it wrong. Monitoring people with filters and stuff is not seriously considered by any country who in reality wants freedom to it's people. Soviet Union was an Orwellian nightmare. I hope US doesn't make the same mistake.

Devlar, I'm all for a good debate, but I'm going to ask you again to PLEASE not take my words or anyone else's out of context and change their meaning?  I will start deleting the quoted portions the next time you do that unless you include the relevant surrounding text and accept the fact that I say exactly what I mean, nothing more, nothing less, as I've said in the past.  Now, let's continue the hot, acidic, but yet so far very fascinating debate.  I'm about coded out tonight and I could use a diversion. :)

Now, to answer what you said, you seem to take what I speak as a personal attack against you, when I'm speaking about the situation as a whole.  DID YOU READ the part where I said that protesters are expressing an opinion?  DID I SAY that they should not have the right to do that?  And did you happen to look at the general opinion of the REST of the world, including a great many citizens in the US that don't get reported about because they're NOT in front of the mainstream media with signs and banners who DO want the US to remove Saddam?  There ARE plenty of people who are going out of their way to support this war, however you seem to confuse me with one of them.  I've said before I do not WANT war, I just don't see any way to AVOID it at this point, nor do I see another solution that will actually work in the short term.  As for Saddam being removed by an assassin squad which, by the way, is against the rules of the Geneva convention, are YOU insane?  Now you suggest the US commits BLATANT WAR CRIMES?  You KNOW that sets a precedent for ANY country to assassinate the leader of any other country with impunity.  Is that what you want?  And just how do you intend to get in a special ops crew in there to take him out and his cabinet without it being a suicide mission?  Should we "good guys" smuggle in a tactical nuke and become suicide bombers OURSELVES?  Eye for an Eye?  And like Qusay isn't waiting to take over when daddy kicks the buckey?  That is the most absurd solution I've heard so far, it won't work, and the simple reason is that the POWER STRUCTURE that Saddam has will remain.  His Republican Guard will still be there, along with his loyalist generals in the regular army, and another bad guy will take over.  I find it funny that you're all for democracy, but yet you seem to think the Iraqis are undeserving of it or incapable of it somehow, and I really don't understand that.  The people tried to rebel before, they couldn't do it, so now they need help.  Well, they're going to get it, and if anyone murders thousands of civilians I can guarantee you that Saddam will blow up a few hospitals and schools himself just to say "See what the Americans did to us?"  You just watch.

Now step back and look at the rest of what you're saying here.  YOU made the assertion that your anti-war association would get your family killed.  I merely said that there are two types of people in the world, those who will fight if attacked, and those who won't.  The consequences are historically indisputible, I leave it up to YOU to determine what kind of person you are.  How should I know if you'll take a bullet willingly or pick up a gun or sword and fight back instead if threatened personally?  I don't know that because I didn't ask you.  Quit putting words in my mouth, I never said "Devlar's a pacifist and will get his family killed!"  And I would appreciate it if you NOT use Jesus's name as a swear word on the bulletin board.  Show some respect here for the resident Christians, even if you disagree with their beliefs.  As for countries acting in their national interests, again you take what I say out of context.  Yes, every nation DOES act in their own interests, that includes spying, military action, and economic action as well as political chess-playing.  I never said that "doing it because it's always done that way" was a GOOD thing, but that IS how the game is played around the world, unless you're naive enough to expect human nature to change overnight and everything to be peace and roses just because the cold war is over.  YES it leads to senseless violence, that was my whole point!  This world has known nothing BUT senseless violence for all of recorded human history!  What the hell do you think September 11 was?  What do you think is happening NOW?  Personally I'm a bit tired of hearing how "imperialist" American foreign policy is.  Have you stopped to look at the EU lately?  Ever hear of "globalism"?  If that isn't a fancy word for imperialism then what the hell is?  And as far as being imperialistic is concerned I don't see you pointing any fingers at the Soviet Union, or how about the histories of England, Portugal, or Spain?  Remember the satelite countries the Soviet Union had under the Warsaw pact?  Or who made North Korea what it is now?  Or Communist China?  And yet who is Russia and China trying to emulate now?  Even CASTRO doesn't recognize China because of Western influences, you think they're immitating anyone BUT the US when it comes to that?  What country does the rest of the world try to be like at the same time they blame it for all the world's evils?

Now let's move back to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel and the like.  Ok, so what do you propose there, abandon the Jews?  Let them go through the holocaust AGAIN like in Germany?  Sit back and do NOTHING while they ALL die?  Do you advocate the extinction of the Israeli people just so that America doesn't get a black eye and so it doesn't offend the radicals in the region?  Like they won't act anyway, and no you don't have to bring up Palestine, I know damned well what's going on between the Jews and the Palestinians, we've been over that before as well, and as far as I'm concerned as long as the Palestinians keep harboring Hamas, Al Aqsa Brigade, Islamic Jihad, etc, then they're going to keep getting more of the same until Arafat either wakes up or gets replaced with someone who'll kick them out, that is, if it's not so late that they can even be dug out at this point.  Personally I think the Palestinians CAN'T get rid of the extremists on their own, and no I am NOT an advocate of the extinction of the Palestinian people either.  I want to see peaceful coexistence between the two, but then, I also know what the result of the signing of that peace treaty will be.  The politics within Arabia and the other middle eastern nations are quite complex.  Yes there is an anti-American sentiment there, but who do you think is breeding it?  I'll tell you who, the terrorists who follow the doctrine of Wahabism LIKE Osama, and their supporting Islamic clerics who are preaching murder in the name of Allah instead of promoting peace.  The reason I can stand here and defend Islam, even though it is not my belief, is that I have seen many Muslims who are better and more decent people that a lot of womanizing couch-potatos that call themselves US citizens and who would also never lift a finger in anger toward another human being.  THAT is the kind if Islam that is needed in the region and in the world, and until the terrorists and their supporters both within the states of certain nations over there, INCLUDING Saudi Arabia, and within the Islamic clergy are rooted out and squashed this will only continue and get worse until it ignites into a full-scale global war.  The choice is fairly simple from where I see things, either act and remove the threat before it can blossom, or reap the bitter harvest that will result.  Until either ending materializes clearly things will continue to be fluid, little wars will erupt, terrorist attacks will occur, people will die and be scared, and economies will continue toward collapse.  Reminds me of how it was in Noah's day before the flood.

As for giving money to Osama, you seem to forget that the US was helping the Afghanis fight off Communist aggressors from the USSR at the time, and Osama was very much on the side of the US during that period of time, at least, in appearences.  It was later that he overtly turned against the US.  In fact, I've heard it that Oliver North brought up Osama's name during the Iran-contra trials when being questioned by a certain Senator Gore at the time?  Not sure how true that is, but Al Gore had no idea who this guy was back then if this is true, so why should Reagan or Bush have?  Maybe he wasn't really that much of a threat yet, it does take time to grow terrorists you know, and Reagan had his hands full enough with the ones in Iran and Lebanon at the time.  At least back then they just took hostages.  It's also no big secret that the US bribes nations, well gee, big surprise there, happens all the time by lots of countries, only this time the US has decided they don't need Turkey to open a northern front but instead can go in through Kuwait.  Although it WOULD be to Turkey's advantage to have the US military on a northern front to keep the Turkish border secure, so Turkey is running the risk of throwing a BIG economic boon away, as well as a security blanket when the operation goes down.  Who says Saddam won't push north once it all begins?  Who says the Kurds won't get some bright idea and start an uprising in Turkey at the time?  Opportunists abound in the lands of sand.  It's always been that way.

Now regarding monarchies, I do like the idea of democracy in principle, you seem to have missed that little fact, as much as you've missed the fact that any prime minister or president IS likened to a king as I pointed out, however as I've stated there are situations where the common voice fails to act in the common good.  That's why people elect officials to handle those sorts of things.  You don't ask a bricklayer to engage in international diplomacy any more than you ask a diplomat to build a bridge.  Both have their place, both have their value.  You call me insane? I won't dispute it.  In fact, I happen to enjoy my insanity if your version of the world is what's called "sane".  I'm sorry that I don't live my life around YOUR expectations Devlar, but then, I don't exist to please people and I never will.  No, I do follow the will of a certain monarch, but it's one that you would never recognize exists, much less accept as legitimate.  I wonder sometimes if you understand the concepts of duty, honor, and loyalty, and what good they are capable of when combined with honesty, evenhandedness, strength, love, and compassion.  A good king can work wonderful things for mankind, and so can his servents, however as I said before, humans are not just and to date humanity has done a pretty damned sorry job of governing this planet.  I don't think they should give up on peace or stop trying to make things better though, I've just seen it all to long to change my expectations of how things will play out.  I do try to see the best in people when I can, not the worst, but I cannot ignore the latter either.  I already know the bad things people are capable of, you hear about it every day on the news, nothing but negativity, why dwell on it?  Why NOT look for the good in people?  You want to know where I was prior to all this as you've asked in a previous post?  I was planning the destruction of your species for the evil I had seen done to this world by mankind.  You've all but destroyed this planet through acts of greed and war, and frankly it pisses me off to no end.  A certain non-existant God convinced me quite harshly some time ago that removing mankind from the earth is not in the best interest in the universe.  I do understand why, again that touches on things you do not believe in so there's no use discussing that here.  The important thing is since that time I no longer seek to impose my will upon people and I've LEARNED to see the value in humanity.  My only fight from this point onward is with the beings that would restrict the very ability for people like you to choose freely how to live your lives.  I fight those who work in the shadows, unseen to your kind, and be very thankful that you're quite ignorant of them.  If you think they don't exist, well, all the better I suppose, you can go on living in pursuit of happiness unobstructed by such worries and quite comfortable in the insanity of one certain bird of fire.  Now if someone as spiteful and vengeful as I can be, who despises the actions of humanity with every fiber of his being can actually learn to see the GOOD in people, why the hell can't you?  You're a damned good mapper, and except when issues of politics and religion arise you can be quite pleasant to be around and converse with.  Do you have to be so cynical all the time?  I'd really like to see you look on the bright side for a change.  As for me, well, I will speak my mind as much as it pleases me, but don't ever think that I am out to control people's lives.  Lump me in with the right wingers and conservatives if you want, call me a nut, but I am nothing more than who I am, and I will never claim to be anything else.  Attack me if you will, disect what I say and change the meaning, but I will continue to speak the truth regardless of what people think, and I will continue to turn the other cheek as long as is needed. :)

im gonna abuse smilies for this
 :hail:  :hail: quotingGOD
 :hail:  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:





 :evil: Bush and his followers :evil:  
  :evil:     :evil:     :evil:    :evil:    :evil:    :evil:  


yea yea pho you may delete it if ya want

devlar, i already said why we cant use your solution. the Geneva convention prevents ANYONE from assassinating world leaders.. oh, and by the way, when Saddam dies from old age, or steps down, guess who gets the throne next? HIS SON, who is even more psycho and tottaly bent on world conquest than his father..   how the hell are the Iraqis gonna sort it out? if Saddam and his cabinet goes down, his son goes into place, if his son goes down with them, someone just as bad will step up..


on the subject of bombing runs, what the hell is there left to bomb? weve blown everything of importance up with precision munitions, and we sure as hell arent going to carpet bomb entire cities ala WW2...  IF it ends up at street fighting, we will win, the US has written the book on cqb(at least the SEALS did).. and with direct energy weapons we have the ability to pacify large numbers of people without killing them..

So assassinating the people of a country is OKAY but assassinating their leaders isn't? What's there to bomb? A whole lot of people at last check, INNOCENT people the kind that dont enjoy having 500lbs of explosives dropped on thier homes. For the record I do have a problem with that part of the Geneva Convension, its utter archeic nonsense left over from a time where it was considered "ungentilemen-like" to slaughter leaders. Tell that to the boys at Nuremburg. As for your "precision munition" (The kind that have the ability to fall on Chinese Embassies) you should take a good look at your cluster bombs and notice that it is they are exact size and shape of the food packages you drop. Coincidence right?

As for Sadam, if you really have a problem with shooting him because you are this large proponent of keeping dictators alive. Then kidnap him and drop him off in Siberia, or even Northern Canada. Some place cold without a great deal of sand. An Occupation in Iraq will scream of American Imperialism and Israeli Influence in the region, if America is prepared for the onslaught of suicide bombers used against their troops, and possibly their civilians back home because they can accept a stuborn and stupid government that does it. Then so be it

As for taking you out of context? So what does that mean you contradict every single thing I've quoted there? So all of it you don't agree with? So in the sentences that follow every one of those quotes you recant everything said in them? Or maybe you actually do believe those things and you just sprinkle on a little ambiguity in order to conceil it. So which is it, do you have such poor writing skills as to say numerous things and then contradict them right after or is it the fact that you believe them. If you want to start deleting parts of my posts, go ahead, it'll only give off the great scent of despairation, as well as show why you shouldn't give conservatives something like the Patriot Act.

For the Record Pheonix, your Truth tends to be something that every rational person disagrees with, so even if you think the world's gone crazy, your still nuts

weee i can quote too!!


uhm, wtf is that exactly supposed to mean, generally you assasinate one person, if its more then one, then its no assasination.

heres a definition since you dont seem to know the meaning of it..

as?sas?si?nate
tr.v. as?sas?si?nat?ed, as?sas?si?nat?ing, as?sas?si?nates
1.To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.
2.To destroy or injure treacherously: assassinate a rival's character.

the Geneva convention and the treaty it put in place was NOT because of the not to kill officers type thing you are thinking about, it is because WW1 was started via the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand which led to.....(look it up if you really dont know how ww1 started) the Geneva convention took place 4 years after WW2, and not only did it put in place to stop assassinations, it also put in some general humanitarian rules of warfare that are abided by EVERY nation that fights wars. the only people that dont abide by the geneva convention are terrorists

heres a link to the terms set out by the geneva convention:
http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html (http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html)

and i think thats only part of it, havent had time to read it all yet..


uhm, again wtf? who the hell is dropping bombs on civilian targets on purpose.. we get the occasional bomb that decides to crap out, but i dont see us dropping bombs on civilians left and right..



please do some research on smart weapons before you say such things.

for 1. cluster bombs are not smart weapons
for 2. we havent used cluster bombs in iraq since desert storm..

a list of smart weapons that the US currently uses can be found here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/index.html (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/index.html)

notice that there are NO bombs with the designation CBU, which stands for Cluster Bomb Unit

here is the list of dumb weapons currently in service:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/index.html)

notice CBU's are listed under dumb bombs. making them NOT precision munitions

links to pictures of cluster bombs:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu24b.jpg (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu24b.jpg)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-58b.gif (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-58b.gif)  (the inset is the bomblet)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_31.jpg (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_31.jpg)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu97-3.jpg (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu97-3.jpg)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_30.gif (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu87_30.gif)  (show of use)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/ta...n_dispenser.gif (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/tactical_munition_dispenser.gif)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/rockdrop2.jpg (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/rockdrop2.jpg)

to me, those bomblets dont look like food..


facts = teh ownz0r

I'm against shooting Sadam all of the sudden?  Where the hell did that come from?  Keeping dictators alive?  First you quote me out of context, now you're printing baseless assertions and outright lies?  I never ONCE said Saddam should be left alive.  Scroll up and re-read what I've said about Saddam if you think this is what I believe.  I DO think somebody should put a bullet in him because he is an EVIL dictator and a mass MURDERER.  I said assassination will not work because it's bad strategy, not because Saddam deserves to live, and I stated as Hedhunta has also repeated twice now that it is in violation to the Geneva Convention to assassinate heads of state, legitimate or not.  As far as dropping Saddam off somewhere else, that's called "exile" and it's already been proposed.  Exiled leaders also have a bad way of maintaining power.  Besides, if he goes anywhere it would be North Korea, they'd welcome him with open arms, they've already said they would.  Hedhunta's also right about the fact that the USA does NOT go out of it's way to bomb innocent civilians.  If you think that the US military is that barbaric then I suggest you take whatever Anti-American propaganda you've been reading, burn it, enlist in the US military and go along and see just what they do for yourself.  I KNOW people in the US military, quite a few of them actually, and EVERY DAMNED ONE OF THEM would put a bullet in his CO's head before he'd follow an order to fire on civilians, and would gladly pay the consequences for not doing the wrong thing.

Also I do not contradict myself.  I provide many sides to an issue and try to lay out as many FACTS as I can before leading to the obvious conclusion.  I prefer to let people draw their own conclusions for the most part as opposed to spoon-feeding them doctrine as you seem to like doing.  The only contradicting I do is against what you say when you twist what I say to make it sound like I mean something else.  Then I clarify and reiterate where I stand and what I really said.  It's that simple.  I conceal nothing because I am afraid of nothing.  If you want to know something, all you have to do is ask instead of inventing alterier motives where none exist and putting words in my mouth to try to discredit me.  While I do reserve the right to withhold certain things, I will answer questions truthfully, honestly and openly every time as much as it is possible.  You want to know what I think?  Then ASK, don't go around saying that I believe this or that when I don't.  As for deleting parts of posts, I wouldn't dream of deleting your words, only MY words that you are taking out of context because in doing so you're being rude and disrespectful. I've asked you, along with other board members repeatedly NOT to do so as a matter of courtesy.  Actually I think I'll do the opposite.  Instead of deleting the quoted parts I'll just add the parts back in that you're leaving out so that people reading your disection will see the whole truth, not just the parts you want to pick out and stab at and twist.  As for desperation, I hardly feel desperate about anything here, but you turn around and insult my writing ability?  What relevance does my writing ability have in any of this?  Who's being desperate here?  Usually personal attacks are a sign of desperation when one doesn't have a leg to stand on idealogically.  As for ideology, the pattern I've seen so far is that you attack Bush, you attack American foreign policy, you attack people with a religious affiliation of any sort, and you attack people who in your eyes have a conservative mindset.  Edit, cut, print, repeat.  You say you're not anti-American, but then you accuse America of being imperialist.  Who's contradicting themselves?

From what I've seen so far you've shown a great deal of intolerence to anyone who's religious or political ideology differs from your own, while calling those said individuals intolerant in the process.  You claim there is no right or wrong, yet anyone who differs from your political perspective is automatically wrong and/or stupid.  You claim there is no "truth" yet THAT flies in the face of rationality, not what I've said unless you factor in my fight against demons.  I'll admit a lot of people think that's nutball, but so what?  If my "insanity" doesn't hurt anybody then who the hell cares?  And if I'm really fighting bad critters then I'm doing you a favor in the process, so again who cares?  Now the REST of what I say is based on the analysis and presentation of facts.  Perhaps it's easier for you to twist things to fit your worldview if you don't have to acknowledge any one truth, instead of changing your mind if the facts disagree with your perceptions.  Or maybe it's that you just hate conservatives, Christians, Jews, Republicans, or anything that doesn't have the word "liberal" tacked into it's description?  Well, do you?  You seem to delight in attacking me personally, and for what reason?  Do you think I'm stupid, conservative, and a Republican lover?  Well if I'm stupid I'm doing a pretty good job of coding and modeling for Generations for being an idiot, if I'm conservative then I won't dispute it, but I've never once said I'm a Republican lover.  No, I'm a Christian.  I'm a GOD lover, and a lover of life, even the lives of those who hate me.  You call me irrational?  If I was irrational I could just say "I don't like you" and ban you off the board for no reason.  THAT is irrational.  Have I done that?  Who's being the irrational one here?  I happen to know a great many rational people who think I have my head on quite straight Devlar, and insulting me just because you dislike how I look at things in life isn't going to change anything.  And just who are you to so arrogantly assume that YOUR view is the commonly accepted and "rational" view of the entire civilized world?  How about this article then:  http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-20031...3101096,00.html (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003101096,00.html)  I guess in England you'd be in the minority on at least one issue.  Also most of the world has some kind of religious belief if you ask them.  Secular Humanism and Atheism are NOT in the majority despite what you may have been led to believe, and when viewed in the light of history have been almost absent from human history until the modern era when people felt for some reason a need to abolish God.  That's two areas where very rational people would disagree with you.  Besides, if as you've said before there's no absolute right and no absolute truth then guess what, you're just as wrong as you think I am since nobody can ever BE right.  There is no logic in that, nor is there logic in the way you seem to make everything about ME in these debates.  What did I ever do to anyone, hmm?  Don't I get enough attention as it is, and you want to give me MORE?  Controversy breeds interest, which means that more people will read what is said here and draw their own conclusions.  If so, that only serves my purpose in the end.

I sense much anger in you Devlar, and so far I've seen very little love and almost no happiness except when you think you're gaining some kind of upper hand in an argument or debate in which you villify someone, insult them, and then pat yourself on the back for it.  You offer very little hope for anything, and you don't say anything uplifting or positive.  I'll be the first to compliment you on the good that I see in you.  Like I said, when we're not discussing politics and religion you're pretty decent to be around, and you've got some very good map making abilities.  Why you have to be so cynical the rest of the time is beyond me.  Is it that all you realy want here is to one-up the other guy and get the last word in so you can feel good about yourself?  Is this about winning somehow, feeling you somehow have to squash the local arrogant right-wing conservative?  If so don't even bother, I'm not out to win arguments Devlar, only to present facts to the best of my knowledge, correct errors, and speak the truth.  Yes, MY version of it because I happen to believe in myself, and I happen to believe that my version of the truth is correct.  That's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours.  If this is your game and winning is your goal, then be prepared to play it forever.  I'll just continue being who I am.  Consider who I am, forever means very little to me. :zzz:

Let's vote on this. Who thinks George Dubeeya is a chimp that's gone bananas? Who thinks Saddam is just another third-world low-life dictator with a lust for power and control? When you think about it, a lot of these so-called leaders are power hungry control-nuts that think "...it's my way or, hell it's my way." If our congress worked the way it's supposed to we wouldn't have in worries about heavy handed laws or missrepresentation. :ph34r:

this is what Mittens (http://www.matazone.co.uk/kitty7.html) has to say on the topic. Es humor, just like this thread started out as. I think that was forgotten somewhere along the way.

Well, I can't view the flash kitty thing, but you're quite right Bys.  I guess it's good that this is in CC, no?  Let's lighten things up for a while!  Oh, and speaking of Viva La France, Le cat is out of le bag, this should be good for a laugh or two:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm)

Of course, we know the real reason France doesn't want a war with Iraq is that they don't want the world to see the Iraqis surrendering better than they do.  Might ruin that reputation. :P

gotta love that.. i beleive Neville Chamberlain said soemthing similar right before Hitler tore up the entire European continent.. at least the British have learned their lesson..

The British have obviously not learned their lesson since they're letting Bush do exactly what Hitler did at the beginning of his reign.

He's using fabricated war efforts to distract the American public from his failed domestic policies. It's a very simple method, which Hitler used very well. What many people don?t know is that Hitler came into power legally. He and his Nazi Party were elected democratically in a time of great national turmoil and crisis.  They themselves had done much to cause the turmoil, of course, but that's what makes the Bush comparison so compelling. Like the Bush administration, the Nazis were funded and ultimately ushered into power by wealthy industrialists looking for government favors in the form of tax breaks, big subsidies, and laws to weaken the rights of workers.
When the Reichstag (Germany's Parliament building) was set ablaze in 1933 (probably by Nazis),  the Nazis framed their political rivals for it.  In the general panic that followed,  the German Parliament was purged of all left-wing representatives who might be soft on communists and foreigners, and the few who remained then voted to grant Chancellor Hitler dictatorial powers. The only difference is that Hitler was an intelligent person, sadistic, but intelligent. Bush on the other hand is merely a puppet for his daddy's puppeteers.

Read the following two statements, and see if you can identify the authors...

"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It works the same way in any country."

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: 'Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.?

The first statement is a quote from Hitler's right hand man, Hermann Goering, explaining at his war crimes trial how easily he and his fellow Nazis hijacked Germany's democratic government. The second statement is a quote from Bush's right hand man, John Ashcroft, defending the Patriot Act and explaining why dissent will no longer be tolerated in the age of terrorism.

The Bush administration wants us to fight in Afghanistan, to fight in Iraq, and to fight wherever terrorists may be hiding. But what are we fighting for? According to the White House, we're fighting for freedom. Yet freedom is exactly what the White House is demanding that we now SURRENDER in the name of fighting terrorism.

So what's really going on? Well, it's all a lie, of course. The Bush administration isn't any more interested in protecting our freedom from terrorists than Hitler was in protecting Germans from communists, Jews, and all the other groups of scapegoats. The Bush administration is fighting only to protect itself and its corporate sponsors. It hides behind a veil of national security and behind non-stop war headlines of its own creation.  And behind that smokescreen, Bush, Inc. is pursuing Hitler's old agenda from the 1920?s and 30?s: serving the interests of the corporate industrialists who brought it to power.

There is a name for governments that serve the interests of Big Business at the expense of their own citizens: FASCIST!

(Of course, a lot of this is taken from various news articles along with personal research. None of it is direct quotes though, aside from those specifically mentioned. Thus leading to a slight lack in orginality, but I feel no need to correct something that is without errors)

this is mere speculation on my part and more concerns what is likely to happen when not if NATO/USA attacks iraq

when it comes to war the iraqies have learned to stay out of the dessert as the american tanks, stealth-bombers and spy-satelites give them a clear advantage over the iraqies

now engaging a hostile force in a city with a hostile population? thats something else

armour sucks in cities (and yes i spent most of my millitary service trying to take out tanks and apc:s) this is a fact
the speed of modern armour and range of their cannons get neutralized by the short distances inside a city and the rubble and roadblocks makes tanks sitting ducks. tanks that go into a city must have massive infantry support
bombing the city to hell before an assault would be an option if there wasnt any CNN or other news service to report the suffering and death of all the civilians

As far as the SEAL:s writing the manual on cqb......
granted the seals and some of the other special forces units are good but iraq must have special forces of their own dont they? some part of the iraq army must have had cqb training aswell?
I once return to the hostile population part that will make it harder for the US-troops then their iraqi counterparts.

I think that the US-troops will have a hard time in the cities and if the iraqies can hold out long enough and kill enough americans the public oppinion in the US will swing just like vietnam (note that i use the word enough about killing americans for the oppinion to swing and i dont but any values into that if its a good or bad thing ill let others decide namely americans and iraqies)

i saw an episode of 60 min about the american NBC-gear.
60 minutes stated that a large amount of the current NBC-gear was deffective and that the new gear isnt availeble in large enough numbers and a soldier fainted from the heat of the television lights during the pressconference

a gas mask is a pain to wear and its hot in one and i have only wore one during winter mind you

also the NBC-detectors doesnt work properly acording to that show wich is even more alarming what good is NBC-gear if you dont know when to put it on?

NBC stands for Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare

Bagdad and simillar cities will be a rough ride for the US-troops thats my guess

Personaly I have stopped asking Will the US attack iraq? and now i mearly ask: When?

edit: also wiews on combat and millitary operations from poeple that dont have millitary training or actuall experience i will ignore

So killing numerous civilians, INNOCENT civilians, would be just fine and dandy in your mind if it were hidden from the public? I really hope that's not what you mean by that remark, because if it is you're just as bad as those clueless war pigs.


I believe the public opinion for Vietman swung because we were in the wrong, just as we are now. We had no right to go f*ck with a civil war, nor do we have any right to go f*ck with Sadam because he may or may not be planning an attack.


I guess I shall keep to myself about that then, since you're going to ignore the opinions of those of us smart enough to stay out of the armed forces.

smart enough to stay out of the armed forces? what kind of baseless ignorant comment is that..




OIC, so, lets just stand by and twiddle our thumbs while Saddam builds weapons and then decides he doesnt like one country and nukes them one at a time(Israel probably being first) .. yup, thats real appealing to me..


next up.. do you have any idea of the human rights abuses that Saddam has commited? .. i dont care if any of you guys dont like Bush( it seems to me, that the common arguement is that its all 'Bush' and his 'warmongering' and that Saddam has done nothing to warrant being removed)

heres the 2001 human rights report on Iraq
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8257.htm (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/nea/8257.htm)

and just in case you think thats american propaganda, heres a couple articles off non-specifically american sites

bit o human rights abuses:
http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htm (http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1995/IRAQ955.htm)

mm, nerve gas
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqgas/ (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqgas/) (yes i know the reports from 1993, but saddam has yet to PROVE that hes removed these weapons..)

some more human rights stuff
http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm (http://hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm)

POW's, scroll down to iraqs treatement of prisoners
http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ391.htm (http://staging.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ391.htm)

more yummy human rights violations
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast4.html (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/mideast4.html)

a report from australia
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/...4927599191.html (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/11/1044927599191.html)

ohhh some pictures here i think
http://www.itv.com/news/World764437.html (http://www.itv.com/news/World764437.html)

this is just some of what i could produce..  i could produce some truely graphic images of what hes done that would stick in your mind forever if i looked hard enough..  its some pretty nasty sporkin stuff..i dont care if any of you think bush is sporked in the head and fascist, once saddam is gone bush should be done with his little escapade and the world( as well as the iraqi people) will be much better off..

About as ignorant as ignoring people who are not willing to give up their lives so some egotistical asshole can expand his wallet.


So what? There's several other countries in the world that DO have nuclear weapons, America included. What's to say one of these powers won't blow up the world? What even says Saddam is building and/or buying weapons? This isn't like Cuba, it's not as if we have spy plane photos of the weapons... Give me some proof that he's a threat and I'll agree. But until that times comes, I shall stand by my descision. Besides, why do you care about Israel so much anyways?


So because he's not doing anything to American's that makes it okay to take over his country? This isn't really about personal opinions of liking or disliking Bush and Saddam, it's common sense. Bush is a moron with regressing genes, while Saddam is a "big bad" lunatic who may have weapons, but certainly has oil.


I'm sure you could, HA!!! I don't think Bush is a moron or a fascist, I know he is, so would anyone that would look past the propaganda. I seriously doubt the world will be better once Bush takes over Iraq, especially if he goes against the U.N. as he seems to want to do so very badly.

Dev, let me clear something up for you here.  There is a difference between and accusation and a fact.  A fact can be empirically proven based on physical and tangible evidence.  An accusation is an assertion that something is a certain way, or that someone is guilty of some crime that you believe them to have committed.  We have documentation, intelligence reports, dead bodies to back up what Saddam has done.  The same with Hitler.  There are still Jews alive today with the tattoos on their arms from Auschwitz, and plenty more who are still drifting in the atmosphere, or what's left of them that is.  Bush is the elected leader of a country that happens to be very big on freedom and democracy, which also happened to have airplanes loaded with civilians crashed into two of its biggest cities.  Thinking Bush is like Hitler as a matter of personal opinion is one thing, but what evidence is there that this grand conspiracy you speak of is under way?  I heard a lot of people saying Clinton was going to use his power to declare martial law and lock down the country if there was some terrorist attack back in the 1990's.  They tried to blow up the world trade center then, but it didn't happen.  A lot of people accused Clinton of launching the war in Yugoslavia and blowing up a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and launching missiles into Afghanistan as a way to distract public opinion away from the investigation he was under at the time.  Sounds a lot like what you're accusing Bush of doing right now, however the key difference is that Bush is not under investigation or impeachment hearings nor has he been asked to testify in front of a grand jury under oath, so one accusation would appear to be a little more believable than the other.  In the end though, both are still just that - accusations based on assumed motives backed up by no hard evidence, unless you count that stained dress as the end result of "hard evidence".  As for this being distraction for a failing domestic policy, what domestic policy?   I find that quite an interesting assertion since the Democratic party is opposing the current domestic policy at every turn.  Now whether you agree with Bush's proposals or not, stonewalling GUARANTEES his policy to fail since it won't ever be passed.  Calling it a failure afterwards seems like so much back-patting.  To me that is purely a partisan move with the sole intent of regaining power in the senate and house and the presidency that were lost in the last elections.  We all know politicians want to be elected, and stalling any domestic policy then blaming it on the war appears to them to be the best tactic in order to do so.

Think this isn't so?  Then I might wonder why the Democratic party which with its mouth likes to be the champion of the poor and minorities is currently filibustering the confirmation of a very prominant hispanic judge to the DC circuit right now.  Constitutionally it takes a simple majority of 50 votes to confirm a judge yet to break the filibuster it takes 60.  They had a cloture vote last week to break the filibuster and it only received 55 votes.  That is an unconstitutional gesture by in effect forcing a 60 vote majority in order to confirm a judge which by the constitution should only require 50.  The president has a right to appoint judges, the Congress has a duty to confirm them.  Now why would the Democratic party oppose the appointing of a hispanic to a circuit court that is just one step below the US supreme court if they are for the rights of minorities?  Perhaps it has to do with the fact that his interpretation of the law is not based on an ideology that they agree with poltiically, but instead as he's put it based on factual interpretation of the law, and perhaps it is because he has personal views that happen to be conservative views that they are opposed too?  It seems an awfully harsh hit to take politically by being publicly hipocritical like this, opposing the appointing of a minority to a prominant position in government but then take a look at how much of a hard time that Al Sharpton - a black man - is having with his own party in seeking a presidential nomination, even though according to the latest polls has the most support in New York City and is the number 3 guy in support for New York State?  Are the Republicans the ones dredging up his past in front of the press to discredit him?  Just what is going on here, it is NOT like the Democratic party to oppose the advancement of minorities, is it?  You tell me who's holding up up what here.  As for the domestic agenda, from what I can tell it hasn't failed, in fact it CAN'T fail because it was never even given a chance.  It was DOA as a political move, pure and simple, same as Esperanza's judicial appointment and the same as Sharpton's presidential bid.  Those in power don't want any upstarts, they just want their power back and to keep the power they have.  Block Bush, make it look like his policy with Iraq is at fault, and take back control in 2004.  I don't care which political party you belong to or whether you agree with it or not, this is how the game is being played.  It's dirty pool and the claws have come out.  Even "doves" have claws you know.  Politically speaking Republicans try to compromise with Democrats in order to not look hard-line or partisan, while Democrats tend to sieze on such compromises as opportunity to advance their agenda.  Pity that the Republicans aren't hardline so much, maybe then nothing would happen in American government and people could go on living their lives in peace in the US...  I find the entire notion of partisan politics disgusting.  A representitive government should do just that - represent the interests of the people, not any one ideology or another.

Now that being said, Bush's current policy with Iraq DOES actually date back to September 11.  Bush stated that any terrorists or the countries that harbor them will be in the crosshairs.  Iraq is a known state sponsor of terrorism, Iraq has knowingly and blatantly thumbed it's nose at the free world in the face of the surrender terms at the end of the 1991 Gulf War, and has been developing weapons against these terms secretly.  The United Nations has shown that it is nothing but a collection of petty dictators who want to have a voice and feel important coupled with spineless wimps who are afraid to follow through with their own threats.  If anything the UN has shown time and time and time again to the whole world that it's words are empty, it's guns are empty, and it's spine was surgically removed at some point.  Bush has basically said to the UN "make good on your word" and the UN is saying "we don't want to".  And what kind of credibility does an agency have in the world that is about to appoint Libya to head the commission on human rights, and Iraq to the commission on world disarmament?  What kind of a joke is that supposed to be?  This body has absolutely no credibility left in it, and common sense has felt it's last death throw in this world.  I can't blame the United States for acting in its own interests if the UN just wants to sit on the sidelines all the time.  That those interests extend past the US border is an unfortunate result of globalization, which Europe, Russia, and China are very much a part of as well.  When the US sits inside its borders it's called isolationist, when it acts outside of them it's called imperialist.  You can't have it both ways, and in this case Bush has decided to take the fight to those people and countries who are a threat instead of waiting for another 9/11.  You compare Bush to Hitler, well Saddam happens to worship Hitler, and he's admitted to this.  He worships Stalin, too!  I've yet to see Bush say anything nice about either of these men, yet you say Bush is the one like Hitler and somehow wants to conquer the world?  I hear lots of accusations again, let's blame Bush for all the worlds evils since he's a Republican and a Righty and a rich oil boy, ad nauseum.  I've even heard people on the ultra-right proclaim him to be the antichrist when that's absurdly erroneous from a biblical standpoint.  So far, conspiracy theories not withstanding, Bush has presented himself as a strong leader, a Christian (oh boo hoo, he said the "G" word in public), and like him or not when he says he's going to do something he DOES IT, so evidence-wise there is little to base any of these accusations on, unless of course you think he's going to conquer the world by spreading the gospel... :blink:  You somehow KNOW Bush is a moron and a fascist?  Well, pony it up.  If you have any hard evidence that Bush is somehow a traitor to the American people I think the people need to know, so, let's hear it.  Let's see the proof, REAL proof not just some quotes of quotes from politically slanted commentaries, I mean evidence you can convict with.  Let's get the impeachment hearings going, that's what they're there for after all.  I'm all for calling a spade a spade if you haven't noticed by now, and if Bush is indeed guilty of criminal activity and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt I'll be right in line to damn him for it.

Right now the main goal of the US in the middle east is to remove Saddam Hussein from power because yes, he IS a threat to Israel who happens to be an ally of the United States, and yes, he IS a threat to the United States as well, along with every neighboring country in the region.  Have you already forgotten what he did to Kuwait?  You want to see him do it again?  Do you honestly think that Saddam has had a change of heart since then?  So the US is helping it's friend Israel in the process of removing Saddam, what's your problem with that?  And the US is acting in what it sees as it's national interests, where's the problem there?  France, Germany, Russia, and China are also acting in their own national interests as well, yet who is decrying that?  They on the other hand are supporting this murderous dictator by selling him machinery and weapons and buying his oil in violation of the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq, all the while supporting him politically and diplomatically by stonewalling the execution of UN resolution 1441.  Think the UN isn't in bed with this guy?  How about that drone plane that was conveniently "buried" in the inspectors' reports?  What does Blix have to hide here?  After all, he found SO MANY weapons during the 1990's, like that missing VX gas that Iraq admitted to having, yet now denies, right?  But then, the weapons inspections were a joke from the start, and they've been a joke once again.  The weapons inspectors were NOT sent back into Iraq this time around to go on a bug hunt for Iraq's "nonexistant" arsenal, they were sent in to show whether or not Iraq was complying FULLY with the resolution that Iraq agreed with.  Well, Iraq is NOT complying, they're turning over weapon after weapon that "they didn't have".  Why turn them over except to get Blix and his merry morons to say "See, the inspections are working, we're turning up stuff" in order to stall for time to position troops and to twist the world opinion toward leaving him alone?  Turning up stuff DAMNS this man, he said he had nothing and now he's handing over what he said he didn't even have!  He LIED on a public interview with Dan Rather, IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD regarding the Al Samoud missiles!  If they were not illegal then WHY is he destroying them, hmm?  Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a liar.  A liar once, a liar twice, evidence has been presented, and he IS guilty as charged.  According to the resolution, war is mandated as a result of Saddam refusing to disarm.  Everyone knew he wouldn't, yet they thought the US was bluffing last year.  Well THEIR bluff was called, they signed the resolution and now they don't want to pony up now that the game is over.  The only reason these countries choose to ignore the obvious is either they are so spineless and timid as to be impotent when faced with a real danger of war that they cower and accuse the US of being the evil power here, or else they are somehow collaborating with Iraq and don't want the truth to come out.  So which is it?  France is selling military parts to Iraq as we speak.  Did the United States lose 200,000 people liberating France from the Germans just to have France turn against it and side with this tyrant now?  And just why is it you don't hear all these Arab neighbor states to Iraq complaining about the US wanting to take this guy out?  What is it about this man that scares them enough to let the big bad "Satan America" go "beat up on a fellow Islamic nation"?  I haven't even heard ARAFAT condemn this!  That's a huge risk politically IF, and I say IF, all these Arabs are as anti-American as everyone seems to want to believe.  You can imagine the bitterness and resentment in the US government when your so-called "allies" in Europe oppose you on their own signed resolution and the "anti-american towelheads", as people seem to like to call them in this country, are the ones who are on your side!  But then, Arabs are just people like anyone else, after all, except they're a LOT closer to the problem.  As for Iraq not being a threat to the US, Iraq DOES represent a threat to the United States because Saddam bankrolls terrorists.  If he bankrolls the families of suicide bombers who blow themselved up in Tel Aviv you can bet he's bankrolling other terrorists as well.  You want to see the free world brought to its knees?  You want to talk about protecting US interests?  Just wait until they start running suicide boat attacks on oil tankers with Iraqi dollarsigns financing it.  Then when you're paying $6.00+ a gallon at the pump for the cheap stuff don't bitch about it.  If can think about it, you know the bad guys already have.  

Dev/null, I won't blast you for your decision to stay out of any armed forces, that is your personal decision.  The US military is a volunteer force, there is no draft in place to have to dodge.  However, as a warrior in another kind of "army" I WILL chastise you regarding your comments about implying that you're somehow smarter and therefore superior to people in the armed forces.  I could easily turn around and just say you're just a coward and afraid to fight.  I won't do that, I will respect your decision and your reasons, and in turn I would ask you to respect the decisions and reasons of those who ARE willing to fight instead of calling them stupid.  If you don't understand why people would ever choose to fight then let me spell it out for you.  People who join a military join for one of two reasons:  They have to, or they want to.  Those who have to do it because they're conscripts, they have no choice.  They risk their lives in battle, or they go to the torture chambers (or just prison in the less barbaric nations).  They're also rarely loyal to those they have to fight for.  Look at Iraq, they're ALREADY trying to surrender and the war has not begun.  The other kind of soldier is a solidier because he wants to be, but he fights not because he wants to go to war, but because he knows the costs of complacency.  You ask anyone who's fought in a war if they like war, and the answer, with the exception of a few nutballs, will be a unanimous no.  People who fight choose to fight not because they hate what's at the other end of their gun, but because they love what's behind it.  They fight to defend, or they fight to free the oppressed.  The honorable motives for fighting are to protect what you care about, defend the weak, free those enslaved, and undo the wicked.  It takes courage and commitment to do this.  High words yes, but it is the truth.  Have you ever killed anything dev?  Do you know what it is like to take a life?  Do you know what kind of lasting scars that leaves on people?  I've seen the last breath of many creatures dev, those of which I have ended myself, some I've just been there for as a friend, to ease their passing, yet never is there a disrespect for life.  I've looked into the eyes of the dying as they slipped away, gone from this world forever.  I've weeped over friends I have lost, sang over their bodies the beauty of their lives to the wind, and left them forever.  As a predator I value life, I respect life and I know how precious and delicate it is.  As a warrior I have fought the most evil of things so that people like you can have a right to even EXIST, much less express an opinion on things without having a gun pointed at your head whenever you open your mouth.  Most soldiers don't fight because they want to kill, they fight because they know the consequences of doing nothing and because somebody has to step up to the plate.  Nobody ever wants to see their friends, themselves, or little children caught in the way blown to pieces, shot up, dying alone bleeding for hours from a stomach wound, hacked to pieces by a sword, ripped in half by the treads of a tank rolling over them, or taken away to a prison camp to a fate worse than death.  They know that the consequences when good people do nothing in the face of danger are horrendously worse.  The opposite of war isn't peace, it's slavery.  Hitler invaded Poland, and people did nothing.  Hitler invaded Belgium and France, and people did nothing. When people finally did do something it was damned near too late, all because people didn't want another war.  Imagine what could have happened if a few more aircraft carriers were in Pearl Harbor that day?  Or if Japan had launched a full-scale land invasion on the California coast?  Of if England had said "we don't want war no matter what" like France is doing now, or if Germany had developed the A-bomb well before VE day?  The bitter truth is that freedom is written in blood by those not afraid to spill it, or else the blood of the free is spilled by those who enslave them.  Imagine a boot stamping on your face forever, that is the result of complacency and turning a blind eye toward evil, foreign and domestic.  There was a time in this world when courage and honor meant something, where it was better to die on your feet and stand up for what is right and good than it was to live on your knees just to stay alive.  Everyone dies, eventually, kneel down for now if you want, but it will only help the blade to cut cleaner.

You see, from my viewpoint it's really pretty simple.  Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough for most, having an animal mind and being a bird-brain after all, but to me things either are, or they aren't.  Sure there are some shades of grey inbetween, but everything in life is a question of perception and truth.  Perception is what people react to, not the truth.  If people perceive Bush to be a bad guy, they'll believe that if that's what they want to believe.  If people believe Saddam to be a bad guy, they'll believe that too.  The question is do you let your desire to believe something to be a certain way override your reason when presented with facts to the contrary?  Are you willing to change your mind if you see evidence that you are wrong?  I see a lot of evidence so far against Saddam, but very little against Bush.  I see a lot of evidence of collaboration between France, Germany, China, Russia, and Iraq right now.  I see a United Nations that is cowardly and overly pacifist with a history of inaction.  I've heard of nothing but wars and rumors of wars for the last two decades and it has been no different for all of human history.  This all disturbs me not really so much that yet another war is upon mankind, like that's been any different from how it was 5,000 years ago, big surprise, big deal, only the hardware has changed.  What disturbs me is that now people seem to be more interested in wishing things to be a certain way and acting as if they should be a certain way instead of dealing with how things are right now.  I wish people could stop fighting, but to believe that things will change any time soon would be foolish self delusion.  For the average songbird it's simple, you see a cat and you fly away and squawk to the other birds to do the same, or you get eaten.  Right now I see one cat on the world stage for certain, and he is busy fathering many kittens.  I also see many little birds who like to see catlike shadows everywhere.  While they may feel more alert in doing so than the other birds who are just going about their business, if they fly away at every shadow and never stay in the grass they will starve and be weakened in their paranoia, and they will not have the strength to fly when the obvious cat finally does decide to show his face, and pounce.  Such birds earn their fate all on their own.

That's a lot to reply to, thus leading me not to quote everything ;)

Indeed, I don't have any facts to base my "conspiracy theories? on. But what?s the difference between me shooting down a world leader without proof and Bush shooting down an entire country without proof? Of course I realize Bush is not Hitler, Hitler wrote interesting books while it?s hard to imagine Bush even reading Green Eggs and Ham. Hitler rose from poverty to become one of the most well known leaders in history (for good or bad) while Bush was given everything on a silver plate while his genes regressed more. I was merely pointing out an interesting parallel in strategies. You don?t seem to want to even take that into consideration though. I think you trust the facts way too much, and any politician is definitely the wrong person to put any ammount of faith into.

I realize Saddam is bad, duh. But you forget I am personally against all politicians. That belief aside, it?s clear that there are far worse things going on in our own country; starvation, crappy economy, disease, violence, diminishing rights, etc. But for some strange reason no one ever cares about the homeland, we always have to police the world. It is a strong possibility that what you say is true, but it seems unlikely to me. But my thoughts seem unlikely to you, so we?re even I guess ;)

Of course you haven?t heard Bush state his admiration for Hitler or Stalin, probably because he was too busy enjoying a beer bong when that lesson was being taught in school. And I for one do think it?s a big deal that he constantly praises God. This country was founded on free speech and free thinking, but when it comes right down to it none of that exists. The last thing in the world we need is a retard who?s following in the footsteps of other great Christians.

I have indeed killed numerous creatures myself and it is not a pleasant thing, though it is necessary for survival. I have never had the benefit of killing a human, but I?m sure that time will come sometime. If it wasn?t for the huge repercussions on the earth I would have nothing against war really. Humanity has become quite over populated, leading to famine and disease. But large scale war is not the way to clean it up due to the simple fact that humans are stupid. They will try to out do each other until someone?s sitting in a crater and glowing in the dark. I do on the other hand understand the need for an armed force in some situations? Like those when we?re actually in danger. And for that I was not insulting anyone in the armed forces, but I do not feel what pepe said was any less insulting than what you thought I had implied.

But if no one wants war why do we continue to have them? Obviously some people do want wars. Arms manufactures probably love war, as do all the war pigs themselves. I could really care less if someone kills Saddam or not, but there?s no need to rain napalm (or whatever device of destruction is in season this year) down on an entire region. There?s no honor in battle anymore. The moment I see Bush take up arms and lead the troops into the fight, then I shall believe in him. But worthless leaders sending numerous living beings out to fight the wars they have started is not right, nor should it be supported. But that?s how it goes, because if we let Bush and Saddam battle each other personally we all know who would come out the victor.

All in all I do not like to argue about such things, because I?m obviously no good at it (really, look at any post I?ve made in Controversy Corner) at this tender age. Politics is a trivial process of power. It?s something we do not need, nor should we have. But the sad truth is most humans are ignorant and willing to blindly follow the system because they have been raised unable to fend for themselves. I personally find it a shame that humanity has fallen so low that the only thing they?re good at as a whole anymore is destroying and killing everything around them, including each other.

Bush should just keep away from there and keep the word GOD out of every speech he gives.
he missuses the word.
always the same.
GOD bless us all. (God is agains every WAR in any way exept star  and clan wars :) )
he also try to get himself a name withn the 6 or 12( help me here)  years of presidentship.
exept all of that he does anything even sending all of his troops just to get a bit of oil.
P.s. I just saw on television that even civilians get  a seedtraining in becoming a soldier.
-they have to  learn how to shoot m16s
-learn to survive in the field .
-...
even putting on a gasmask within 9 seconds if theyreever falls a gasbom or whatever.
ofcours they dont tell ya thet your infected from the first second .
but hey theyre ust american civilians so bush can miss those  :rolleyes:

Phoenix - could you type my philosophy paper for me? Free pizza!  ;D

pho took most of the words right outta my mouth..  Bush will nevr get down in the dirt and fight because that would be stupid, and a waste of the commander in cheif..  

as far as the shooting down a country without proof, i think you are comepletely wrong there, the US intelligence community is doing a wonderful job of providing evidence that Saddam needs to be gone, but everyone is just ignoring it.. stating that Bush is just stupid and wants oil..  i say thats stupid, how the hell does someone who doesnt know shit get to be president? do you have any idea of the RESPONSIBILITY it takes to be president? .. i have a tough time watching over my siblings,  try watching over 28 MILLION different, unique, wonderful (and some no so wonderful i suppose too) people that live together in THE best, FREEST, WEALTHIEST, and ADVANCED country and society in the world(only people that come close are the Japanese, but thats only because they are all workaholics... theyre psycho im telling you!) .. anyhow, im enjoying living in this place not having to worry about being dipped into acid cause some over paranoid freak dictator thinks i know something that i obviously dont know but tortures me anyways cause he thinks it funny.

I could tell you how someone like Bush becomes president... But that is again another "baseless opinion". And if you're not careful Hed you will end up dipped in acid. Giving up our rights for false security is not a good way to keep your ass out of an acid bath.

i think ill put my faith in the consititution which has lasted over 200 years and counting.  i didnt say all of what you said was baseless opinions, nor did pho, we both said you need to provide some facts/articles/documents.. anything backing that opinion...


as far as me ending up in an acid bath, never gonna happen unless i do it voluntarily.. part of the constitution prevents it, something about no 'cruel or unusual punishment'.

The Constitution also allows many other things that have already been taken away over the last few decades and past.

Dev/null, I am in full agreement with you there.  I do not like politics myself, I prefer things to be cut and dry.  State your intentions, and do what you intend.  That's why I'm sickened by this whole Iraq thing, not because of the prospect of war, but because of the mockery and circus that is going on.  This dog and pony show with the UN is accomplishing nothing.  It neither removes the threat of Saddam nor does it prevent war.  Why bother?  History is just repeating itself again, the UN is no different than the league of nations and is just as ineffective.  The danger I see is in the world getting bogged down in a quagmire of political maneuvering, accusations, and the emboldening of the terrorists when they feel the US, and the rest of the world, is going to be soft and not have the nerve to act.  Right or wrong, the price for inaction NOW is that it shows weakness.  That is already being exploited.  Now Saddam is bringing in suicide volunteer troops.  This is one thing I failed to include in my last post.  While I pointed out the honorable reasons to fight and to soldier, there are reasons just as dishonorable.  Mindless fanaticism, the desire to kill and brutalize, the desire to conquer for conquest's sake alone, the wish to rule through might - those are all motives of evil men and those who serve them.  A true soldier fights for what is right, the other kind is just a thug with a gun serving yet a bigger thug.

Contrary to what some might think I don't blindly support Bush either, I only support him if he's right, same as anyone else.  I do think he has a strong character and is capable of making difficult decisions.  I do think for the most part his heart appears to be in the right place, who can say for sure, but I will raise this question.  The US just tested a conventional explosive today in Florida that carries 19,000 lbs of explosives.  The intention is to use this to intimidate the Iraqis?  What in God's name for?  This kind of munition has no tactical value in the places where the obvious fighting will be going on - densely populated areas.  I can see such a munition used to destroy hardened targets and underground bunkers... but the collateral damage of using something like this anywhere near a populated area is completely unacceptible.  Blowing it up just for show isn't going to dig out the loyalist troops, and those willing to surrender are going to do so without this thing.  Is this what the delay has been for, waiting for this new toy to work?  And until the smoke clears, who will be able to tell the difference between this beast and a real tactical nuke?  This disturbs me just as much as the world's turning a blind eye toward Saddam.  I see no value in such a weapon from a tactical standpoint unless your intention is killing a lot of people, or else just trying it out "because you can".  I'd like some clarification on the logic behind this.  If they intend to use this to nullify by explosive means underground stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions that are away from civilian areas, assuming this is feasible, then more power to them, and setting a few off "just for show" in addition to that is just fine.  Otherwise I question the use of such a weapon.

Games, disagreeing with someone is one thing, but I would ask that if you speak about something that you at least know what you're talking about.  Putting words in God's mouth isn't a good idea.  God is not opposed to war all the time completely if you read the bible.  The bible is rife with wars, some where God commanded the Israelites to do things that people today would find absolutely barbaric.  The reasoning?  Well, read for yourself, whether you agree with it or not.  If someone here reads this and does not agree with or believe in the bible then this is all irrelevant to you, no worries then, but if you are a Christian, believe the bible, and think God is just peace and love and so much fluff, read on and learn something about your Lord.


Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name

Well that's pretty blunt.

Numbers 31:7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.... (9) The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. (10) They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. (11) They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, (12) and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.  (13) Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. (14) Moses was angry with the officers of the army--the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds who returned from the battle.  (15) "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. (16) "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. (17) Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, (18) but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. . . ."

Kill the boys and men but keep the virgin maidens?  Sounds pretty damned harsh doesn't it?  Times were quite different back then.  The reason for the slaughter of the other women was that they deceived the Israelites into turning away from the Lord, and God struck his people with a plague.  Moses was following the will of the Lord in keeping his people from straying and worshiping false gods and idols, which if you read the Old Testament, they had a strong tendency to stray.    As for keeping those maidens, well, if your guts aren't tied up in knots by now I'm not surprised, nor will I be surprised to hear a lot of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish attacks after this particular Phoenix rant.  Surprise, life is harsh, sometimes God is too.  I know that one from personal experience - I've been on the other end of it myself a few times and had my tailfeathers tanned when I was disobedient.  Let's continue.

Matthew 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived; with him was a large crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. (48) Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; arrest him." (49) At once he came up to Jesus and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. (50) Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you are here to do." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. (51) Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. (52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. (53) Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? (54) But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?" (55) At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. (56) But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Yet here is Jesus warning his disciples that anyone who lives by the sword will die by the sword, as it's often put.  Look at who the ones are who are living by the sword in the text.  Living by the sword should not be confused with using a sword for its intended purpose.  One is a way of life, the other is an action.  Then again, there's another way to read this.  Jesus is the "Word made flesh", and the "Word of God" is a sharp sword.  Perhaps here he is telling his desciples that those who have come to take him will be judged by him (perish) later?  Interesting to ponder.

Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (29) Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (30) And even the hairs of your head are all counted. (31) So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. (32) "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; (33) but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. (34) "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. (35) For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; (36) and one's foes will be members of one's own household. (37) Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; (38) and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (39) Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.

Emphasis mine.  Jesus is saying that through him will come division, and that people will have to choose between following God and following the will of their loved ones and families.  The sword he brings is the Word of God.  One only has to look to the disagreements over religion that go on to see the truth in that statement that he did not bring peace.  Just look at Devlar and myself, we are completely opposite when it comes to belief in God, and how much blood is spilled over differences in religions in the world?

Romans 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; (4) for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (5) Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. (6) For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. (7) Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

Again emphasis mine.  Yes everyone knows there are a LOT of heartless bureaucrats and bad cops and army-types out there.  The key point here is that if one believes that God has a plan then these authorities are set up and knocked down in order to advance that plan and for no other reason, and that respecting such authority serves God, but also has the added bonus of keeping your neck out of a noose.  Render undo Caeser what is Caeser's, and Caeser will leave you alone for the most part.  I do not think that those who are corrupt that hold authority are those who are meant here, but those who are legitimate and are enforcing the laws of the land properly.  If indeed the authorities are servents of God executing wrath against wrongdoers, then what of those of the modern day?  What about the average GI who's out there taking out Al Qaida?  I leave this to your judgement.

Ephesians 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. (11) Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. (12) For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (13) Therefore take up the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. (14) Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. (15) As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. (16) With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. (17) Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

This is spiritual warfare, plain and simple.  THIS is the commandment that I keep, and is what I do; it is the battle I choose to fight.

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in Heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the Dragon fought and his angels, (8) And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven. (9) And the Great Dragon was cast out, that Old Serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the Earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (10) And I heard a loud voice saying in Heaven, 'Now is come Salvation, and Strength, and the Kingdom of our God, and the Power of His Christ: for the Accuser of our Brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God Day and Night.'

War in heaven!  How much closer to God can you get?  God has declared war on Satan and his fallen angels and opens up a can of heavenly you-know-what.  I live to see this day when the evil one is finally cast down and defeated.  Still think God is completely anti-war?

Revelation 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. (12) His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. (13) He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. (14) And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. (15) From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (16) On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, "King of kings and Lord of lords." (17) Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midst of heaven, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, (18) to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders-- flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great." (19) Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. (20) And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. (21) And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.

"Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse... Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven..."  Well I guess that ends the debate a lot of people have as to whether or not we animals are in heaven.  Sorry, it's not a "Homo Sapiens-Only" club up there, but I digress...  Here we see Christ Himself, leading the armies of heaven, smiting the nations with a sword, killing those who are making war against him, with my feathered companions devouring the flesh of the fallen wicked who have been severed.  IN RIGHTEOUSNESS he makes war.  That is the difference between God and man, God KNOWS what is right, man often times is mislead in his motives.  Sometimes what God does appears horrible to people, but in the end does not God define good and evil?  So while there is much of the bible devoted to salvation, turning the other cheek, etc, there ARE times for war.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 TO every thing there is a season, and a time for every matter or purpose under heaven: (2)A time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to pluck up what is planted, (3)a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to break down and a time to build up, (4)a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, (5)a time to cast away stones and a time to gather stones together, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, (6)a time to get and a time to lose, a time to keep and a time to cast away, (7)a time to rend and a time to sew, a time to keep silence and a time to speak, (8)a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

My point here is not to glorify war, I do not like watching people suffer and die, alongside my non-human friends who just get caught in the crossfire.  War unfortunately is a terrible necessity in this cosmic play, the same as death, the same as suffering.  If people want to solve their problems without ever resorting to war, I offer you two solutions.  The first, go extinct.  I guarantee you that you'll never have another war after that.  The second, a bit less drastic, is learn to forgive each other and swallow your foolish pride, turn the other cheek, and learn how to truly love each other as brothers and sisters.  That only works if EVERYONE does it, but people don't like to forgive, they tend to like to get back at other people instead and the desire to dominate is strong as ever.  I don't see either of these scenarios playing out any time soon, so we're all right back where we started again.  As long as there are bad people who desire to oppress and good people willing to stand up to them, there will be war.  As long as there are fallen angels skulking about in the heavens and on the earth, there will be war.  As long as living beings of any species contest for power, there will be war.

as i was only discussing bombing from a tactical standpoint yes dev/null
i will in that pass no moral judgement or say if its right or wrong

bombing the city would viable if there was none to find out about it or report it(from a purely tactical standpoint mind you)
as it minimizes your own losses and hopefully inflicts quite a few on the other side

i dont endorse that approach and if that is what you read then im sorry dev i thought you were more rational then that

the approach and wiews on war has changed a lot since we actually started to see with our own eyes what its like
the camera has done a lot in that sense, i dont know how many times i have seen that naked napalm-burnt vietnamese girl thats runing towards the camera crying.
before the camera war was something honourable and something "beautifull"

in ww1 for example young men were lining upp for a chance to go out and defend its country and uphold its glory and become a hero

wich is pretty far from the reality of the trenches in ww1 dont you think?

smart enough to keep out of the armed forces dev? in sweden its mandatory just like finland and other european countries for every male to do 10-15 months of millitary service
and there are more people then just me that has been in their countries armed forces dev

and yes the ignore comment was maybe a bit ignorant of me
but as i wasnt having a moral argument in that post but merely contemplating about how that impending-war will be waged once the US attack iraq
wether or not its right or wrong is something that wasnt a concern in that post not that i dont care one way or another

but the two arguments have nothing to do with oneanother
right? wrong? either way if im in iraq how do i minimize my own casulties and maximize the enemies? that is what its all about from a tactical standpoint

guess ill have to edit my previous post as i didnt ignore this....:)

you can get out of it for medical reasons yes but not much else

the bible is ust made up nonsens pho.I know that 2.
but you have to admit who would asks for a God who only wants war.
in bush his eyes.
God is the guy who helps him defeat his enemys.
while actually allah is the same God as the christian and jewesh god only they of other religions and just like the jewish they dont believe that jezus was the son of God.
so in this way you ccant ask God to destroy a part of his other people so you can be victorious.

with other words.
If you use God as an excuse to start a war then your even worse then the devil . (me)

can we keep the various 'gods' out of this please.. the arguement is interesting without him in it.. once you start throwing the religion thing into this, it just strays off topic..


as for the 21000 lbs bomb they dropped.. i think the media made up the whole 'scare iraq' thing with it..  they dropped it for the sake of dropping it in my opinion, its cool to watch big things go boom.. i doubt theyll ever use it in real combat, but its cool to watch it go off..

(also heard they needed a C5 Galaxy to drop the thing, so i doubt it would fit on any conventional bomber anyways right now.. though this is unconfirmed)

*Sigh* Games, I'm not going to argue about the validity or lack of validity of the bible or this will, as Hedhunta has said, turn into nothing but a religious debate.  I understand that English is not your primary language so I'm willing to cut a little slack here since I do talk way to damned much anyway.  My point was that you said that God was against all forms of war, which was a factual error IF you go by the bible.  This point ONLY matters if you believe the bible, and if you had actually read my text fully you would have read the part where I said that if you don't believe the bible then what it says is irrelevant to you.  If you don't like what the bible says then don't believe it!  It's really that simple.  Nobody is forcing you to, so feel free to ignore my exposition.  If you meant some other god besides than the Judeo-Christian God then please use a proper name, since God with a capital "G" is commonly accepted to refer to Judaism and/or Christianity.  Now as to your comments about the three religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all having the same God well you're absolutely right - all believe in the God of Abraham, the difference is in how people interpret what He wants them to do and how to live their lives.  You're also right in that you can't ask God to destroy something, only God can make that kind of decision.  Remember Sodom and Gammorah?  Lot pleaded with the Lord NOT to destroy those cities if he could find even 10 righteous men.  The Lord said "find 10 righteous men, and I will spare the cities."  Well he couldn't, so he had to leave, and God proceeded to knock them down.  You want peace?  Then pray to whatever god(s) you believe in for peace!  It may, however, only come after the shooting stops, but maybe the costs on both sides can be lessened.  The last time I checked the only people who were actually out there asking God to destroy something were the extremist nutcases who are saying "Down USA!  Down with the Satan America!" in the middle east, and the ultra-right extremists in the west who are saying "Islam is evil!  Burn all ragheads!"  BOTH types are wrong, and both types are dangerous no matter in which god's name they profess to act or what reasons they make up to justify their extremist intolerance.

Yes, using God as an excuse to start a war IS wrong, but nobody has done that here lately except the terrorists!  Who was dancing in the streets saying "God has judged the great Satan America!" when the world trade center collapsed?  Yet does anyone here remember what was left standing in the rubble?  Remember the steel girders standing in the shape of a perfect cross undamaged in the wreckage?  So did God judge America as the terrorists say, or did God remind America and the world afterwards not to lose hope in the face of evil?  Or was it just all just a big coincidence?  The problem with 9/11, the war with Iraq, and everything in this world is that you CAN'T separate religion from it no matter how much you want to try.  Religion is ingrained in a large percentage of the human population, has been for thousands of years, and still is today.  Extremists hellbent on their agendas cannot ever be reasoned with if their willing to blow themselves up and take as many people down with them.  The only way you can deal with a kamikaze is to kill them before they can do any real damage.  The war in the Pacific during WWII is a good example of that fact.  Terrorists hide behind religion as justification for murder and conquest, and they deceive people around them to believe that the US is somehow the biggest evil in existence, along with Israel, and brainwash them into thinking that if they blow themselves up in a suicide attack it's an instant ticket to heaven where every lustful desire they could think of would be fulfilled for them, while the terrorist "leaders" sit back all cushy and avoid the firestorms they create.  They aren't religious, but they aren't fools either - they know which buttons to push.  They know how to use religion as a weapon to goad people into acting in their behalf and do their bidding.  Terrorists profane the name of Islam, they do not represent it.  You want to talk about politicians sending people to their deaths?  How about Osama and his ilk, did they get up close and personal and martyr themselves in those planes?  No, they sent the goon squad in to do that while they sat around nice and safe back home.  So the end result was terrorists crashing airplanes into the US, and the US bombed them and their supporters flat for the most part and destroyed their training camps in retaliation.  God didn't have anything to do with this, MEN did.  MEN got into those planes and flew them into skyskrapers, and MEN flew B-52's over caves in Afghanistan and blew up the occupants there.  Didn't the terrorists receive the expected response for their actions?  Which ones are left and which ones are so much gibbage right now?  Which ones were acting according to the will of God?  Who's to say, but does it really matter?  Believing you're doing the will of God, and DOING the will of God are two different things.  One can do the first and be dead wrong, and one can do the latter and not even know it.  Remember what I said about perception and truth being separate?  Just because someone believes something doesn't automatically make it right.  Believing in anything blindly is a sure bet that you're probably wrong.  God didn't do anything in this directly from my standpoint except maybe keep the towers from collapsing any sooner so that it was 3,000 instead of 20,000 who died that day.  It could have been a hell of a lot worse.

Hed, the only thing I would disagree with you on is whether or not that bomb will be used in combat.  The AC-130 gunships were described to me by an Air Force Colonel as "flying missile magnets with no practical combat value" about a month before 9/11, and they were used extensively in mowing down the Taliban in Afghanistan.  The F-117 and B-2 were developed during the Cold War arms race, and everyone thought after the Soviet Union collapsed that there was no need for such a large US military so let's start dismantling it and spending the money back home on domestic problems.  They thought that B-52's were relics with no value in an age of precision munitions, and that tactics like carpet bombing were no longer needed if you could home a missile in by remote control with near absolute precision.  Now all these things people thought would never get used HAVE been used over the last decade or so, and old-school blitzkrieg warfare has proven to be the most effective strategy in dealing with a dug-in enemy - NOT surgical strikes that people have recently thought could solve any military objective.  I wouldn't rule out the use of this bomb TOO quickly.  I just hope that you're right, and that it is never actually dropped in combat.

i more meant it probably wont be used on iraq because its prolly gonna end up street fighting..    but  i see where you are going, i didnt mean to say its a useless weapon, the military always finds a use for big things that go boom and dont leave radiation behind.. but in the Iraq situation, unless the Iraqis decide to just give up and park all their tanks in one big spot, i doubt it will be a whole lotta use ... course it could probably be used to the same effect a cluster bomb would with how big it is..

on  a site note.
although my grandparent are religious and my dad had to go to church every week.
(till he got married)
we only go to curh 1 time a year and its with christmas because we have to go from the grandparents.
and not 1 o us actuallly believe in god.


with other words im not religious.

I know there's a god. I've seen too much wierd shit in the last six or seven years for there not to be one. I still can't quite figure out what god wants though. I recently made it out to church. The serman seemed to say that "Jesus had to suffer so you will too. Just don't kill yourself."  :unsure:

Well, I was feeling bored, and I came across this text-to-AOL translator ( http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/aoler.php (http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/aoler.php) ), so I figured since this topic was dead, I would lighten the mood here in CC and take one of the longest Phoe Rants? in this thread and feed it into it. and so, for your amusement, i present to you Phoenix On AOL:

[color=FFFF00]DEV LET MA CLEAR SOM3THNG UP FOR U HERE11!! THEYRE IS A DIFERENCE BTWEN AND ACUSATION AND A FACT!1!!!1!! OMG WTF LOL A FACT CAN B EMPIRICALY PROVEN BAESD ON PHYSICAL AND TANGIBLE 3VIEDNCE!!1!11 WTF AN ACUSATION IS AN ASERTION TAHT SOMETHNG IS A C3RTANE WAY OR TAHT SOMEONA IS GUILTY OF SOME CRIEM TAHT U BLEIVE THAM 2 HAEV COMIT3D1!!!11 OMG WTF WE HAEV DOCUMENTATION INT3LIEGNCE REPORTS DEAD BODEIS 2 BAK UP WUT SADM HAS DONE1!1!1!!! LOL DA SME WIT HITLER1!!1 OMG LOL THEYRE R STIL J3WS ALIEV 2DAY WIT DA TATOS ON THERE ARMS FROM AUSCHWITZ AND PL3NTY MORA WHO R STIL DRIFTNG IN DA ATMOSPHERE OR WUT L3FT OF THAM TAHT IS11!1 OMG WTF BUSH IS TEH 3L3CTED L3AEDR OF A COUNTRY TAHT HAPENS 2 B VERY BIG ON FREDOM AND DAMOCRACY WHICH ALSO HAP3N3D 2 HAEV AREPLAENS LOAEDD WIT CIVILIANS CRASH3D IN2 TWO OF ITS BIGEST CITEIS!1!1 OMG THINKNG BUSH IS LIEK HITLER AS A MATER OF PERSONAL OPINION IS ON3 THNG BUT WUT 3VIEDNCE IS THEYRE TAHT THIS GRAND CONSPIRACY U SPEAK OF IS UNDER WAY??!?! I H3ARD A LOT OF P3OPLE SAYNG CLIN2N WAS GONG 2 USA HIS POWER 2 R MARTIAL LAW AND LOK DOWN DA COUNTRY IF THEIR WAS SOME TERORIST ATAK BAK IN DA 190S1!1!!1 OMG WTF THEY TREID 2 BLOW UP DA WORLD TRAED CANT3R TH3N BUT IT DIDNT HAP3N111!1!11 A LOT OF P3OPL3 ACUS3D CLIN2N OF LAUNCHNG DA WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA AND BLOWNG UP A PHARMAECUTICAL PLANT IN SUDAN AND LAUNCHNG MISIELS IN2 AFGHANISTAN AS A WAY 2 DISTRACT PUBLIC OPINION AWAY FROM DA INVASTIGATION HA WAS UND3R AT TEH TIEM11!!!11! OMG WTF SOUNDS A LOT LIEK WUT UR ACUSNG BUSH OF DONG RIGHT NOW HOW3VAR TEH K3Y DIF3R3NCE IS TAHT BUSH IS NOT UNDER INVASTIGATION OR IMPEACHMENT H3ARNGS NOR HAS H3 BEN ASK3D 2 TESTIFY IN FRONT OF A GRAND JURY UNDAR OATH SO ON3 ACUSATION WUD APEAR 2 B A LITLA MORE BLEIVABLE THAN TEH OTH3R111!!11 OMG WTF LOL IN TEH 3ND THOUGH BOTH R STIL JUST TAHT - ACUSATIONS BAESD ON ASUM3D MOTIEVS BAKAD UP BY NO HARD EVIEDNC3 UNLES U COUNT TAHT STANEED DR3S AS DA AND RESULT OF HARD EVIEDNCE1!1! WTF AS FOR THIS BNG DISTRACTION FOR A FALENG DOM3STIC POLICY WUT DOMASTIC POLICY???!?? OMG LOL I FIND TAHT QUIET AN INTARASTNG AS3RTION SINCE DA DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS OPOSNG TEH CURENT DOMASTIC POLICY AT 3VERY TURN!11! OMG LOL NOW WHETHAR U AGRE WIT BUSHS PROPOSALS OR NOT S2NEWALNG GUARANTES HIS POLICY 2 FALE SINCA IT WONT EV3R B PASED!!!!! OMG WTF CALNG IT A FALEURA AFT3RWARDS SEMS LIEK SO MUCH BAK-PATNG1!!1 2 M3 TAHT IS PURELY A PARTISAN MOVE WIT DA SOLE INTENT OF RAGANENG POWER IN TEH SENAET AND HOUSE AND TEH PRASIEDNCY TAHT WERA LOST IN DA LAST ALECTIONS!1!!1! WTF W3 AL KNOW POLITICIANS WANT 2 B EL3CTAD AND STALNG ANY DOMESTIC POLICY THAN BLMNG IT ON TEH WAR AP3ARS 2 TH3M 2 B TEH BST TACTIC IN ORD3R 2 DO SO

THINK11!!1! OMG WTF LOL THIS ISNT SO?!?!?? WTF LOL THEN I MIGHT WOND3R Y TEH DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHICH WIT ITS MOUTH LIEKS 2 B TEH CHMPION OF TEH POR AND MINORITEIS IS CUR3NTLY FILIBUST3RNG DA CONFIRMATION OF A VERY PROMINANT HISPANIC JUDG3 2 DA DC CIRCUIT RIGHT NOW1!1! WTF LOL CONSTITUTIONALY IT TAEKS A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF 50 VOT3S 2 CONFIRM A JUDGA YET 2 BRAAK DA FILIBUSTAR IT TAEKS 6011!11 OMG LOL THAY HAD A CLOTURE VOT3 LAST WEK 2 BRAAK TEH FILIBUSTER AND IT ONLY RACEIEVD 5 VOTES1!1!! OMG TAHT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL GASTURA BY IN EFECT FORCNG A 60 VOTA MAJORITY IN ORDER 2 CONFIRM A JUDG3 WHICH BY DA CONSTITUTION SHUD ONLY REQUIER 501!1!1!11 TEH PR3SIEDNT HAS A RIGHT 2 APOINT JUDGES TEH CONGRES HAS A DUTY 2 CONFIRM THEM!!11!1!1 WTF LOL NOW Y WUD DA DAMOCRATIC PARTY OPOS3 TEH APOINTNG OF A HISPANIC 2 A CIRCUIT COURT TAHT IS JUST ON3 STEP BLOW TEH US SUPR3MA COURT IF THAY R FOR DA RIGHTS OF MINORITEIS??!!???! OMG PERHAPS IT HAS 2 DO WIT TEH FACT TAHT HIS INTERPRETATION OF TEH LAW IS NOT BAESD ON AN IEDOLOGY TAHT THEY AGRE WIT POLTICALY BUT INST3AD AS H3S PUT IT BAESD ON FACTUAL INTARPRATATION OF DA LAW AND P3RHAPS IT IS B/C HE HAS P3RSONAL VEIWS TAHT HAPAN 2 B CONS3RVATIEV VEIWS TAHT THEY R OPOS3D 2??????!! OMG LOL IT SEMS AN AWFULY HARSH HIT 2 TAEK POLITICALY BY BNG PUBLICLY HIPOCRITICAL LIEK THIS OPOSNG TEH APOINTNG OF A MINORITY 2 A PROMINANT POSITION IN GOVERNMENT BUT THEN TAEK A LOK AT HOW MUCH OF A HARD TIEM TAHT AL SHARP2N - A BLAK MAN - IS HAVNG WIT HIS OWN PARTY IN SEKNG A PRESIEDNTIAL NOMINATION EVEN THOUGH ACORDNG 2 DA LAETST POLS HAS TEH MOST SUPORT IN NU YORK CITY AND IS TEH NUMBR 3 GUY IN SUPORT FOR NU YORK STAET??!?!!?? OMG WTF LOL R TEH R3PUBLICANS DA ONAS DRADGNG UP HIS PAST IN FRONT OF TEH PRAS 2 DISCR3DIT HIM??!?!!! WTF JUST WUT IS GONG ON HERE IT IS NOT LIEK TEH DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2 OPOSE TEH ADVANCEMENT OF MINORITEIS IS IT?!??!?! WTF U T3L ME WHOS HOLDNG UP UP WUT HERE1!!1! OMG WTF LOL AS FOR TEH DOMASTIC AEGNDA FROM WUT I CAN TEL IT HASNT FALE3D IN FACT IT CANT FALE B/C IT WAS N3V3R AVEN GIEVN A CHANCA!1!!!1!! OMG IT WAS DOA AS A POLITICAL MOV3 PURE AND SIMPLE SM3 AS ESP3RANZAS JUDICIAL APOINTMENT AND TEH SM3 AS SHARP2NS PR3SIEDNTIAL BID!!!! WTF LOL THOS3 IN POW3R DONT WANT ANY UPSTARTS THEY JUST WANT THERE POWER BAK AND 2 KEP DA POWER THAY HAEV1!1!!1! WTF LOL BLOK BUSH MAEK IT LOK LIEK HIS POLICY WIT IRAQ IS AT FAULT AND TAEK BAK CONTROL IN 2041!111! OMG WTF I DONT R WHICH POLITICAL PARTY U BLONG 2 OR WHETH3R U AGRE WIT IT OR NOT THIS IS HOW TEH GM3 IS BNG PLAEYD!1!!!1 LOL ITS DIRTY POL AND DA CLAWS HAEV COM3 OUT11111!1 WTF EV3N DOVES HAEV CLAWS U KNOW!!1!1!! LOL POLITICALY SPAAKNG RAPUBLICANS TRY 2 COMPROMIES WIT DEMOCRATS IN ORDAR 2 NOT LOK HARD-LIEN OR PARTISAN WHIEL D3MOCRATS T3ND 2 SEIZ3 ON SUCH COMPROMIESS AS OPORTUNITY 2 ADVANCE THEYRE AEGNDA!1!111 LOL PITY TAHT DA R3PUBLICANS AERNT HARDLIEN SO MUCH MAYB TH3N NOTHNG WUD HAP3N IN M3RICAN GOV3RNMENT AND PEOPL3 CUD GO ON LIVNG THERE LIEVS IN P3AEC IN DA US.!!!11111!1111!!!!!111 WTF LOL I FIND TEH 3NTIER NOTION OF PARTISAN POLITICS DISGUSTNG11!!11! OMG LOL A R3PRAS3NTITIEV GOVERNM3NT SHUD DO JUST TAHT - REPRESENT DA INTERESTS OF TEH P3OPLA NOT ANY ON3 IEDOLOGY OR ANOTHER

NOW!1!11 OMG WTF TAHT BNG SADE BUSHS CURENT POLICY WIT IRAQ DO3S ACTUALY DAET BAK 2 SEPTAMBR 11!!!!!1 BUSH STAETD TAHT ANY TARORISTS OR DA COUNTREIS TAHT HARBOR THEM WIL B IN TEH CROSHARES1!!1 IRAQ IS A KNOWN STAET SPONSOR OF T3RORISM IRAQ HAS KNOWNGLY AND BLATANTLY THUMBD ITS NOSA AT DA FRE WORLD IN TEH FAEC OF DA SURENDER T3RMS AT DA AND OF DA 191 GULF WAR AND HAS B3N DEV3LOPNG WEAPONS AGANEST TH3SA T3RMS SECRETLY11!!!11 DA UNIETD NATIONS HAS SHOWN TAHT IT IS NOTHNG BUT A COLECTION OF PETY DICTA2RS WHO WANT 2 HAEV A VOIEC AND FEL IMPORTANT COUPL3D WIT SPIENLES WIMPS WHO R AFRADE 2 FOLOW THROUGH WIT THERE OWN THR3ATS1!11 LOL IF ANYTHNG TEH UN HAS SHOWN TIEM AND TIEM AND TIEM AGANE 2 TEH WHOL3 WORLD TAHT ITS WORDS R EMPTY ITS GUNS R 3MPTY AND ITS SPIEN WAS SURGICALY RAMOV3D AT SOM3 POINT!!!1 LOL BUSH HAS BASICALY SADE 2 TEH UN MAEK GOD ON UR WORD AND TEH UN IS SAYNG W3 DONT WANT 2!1!!1111 LOL AND WUT KIND OF CREDIBILITY DOES AN AEGNCY HAEV IN TEH WORLD TAHT IS ABOUT 2 APOINT LIBYA 2 HEAD DA COMISION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND IRAQ 2 DA COMISION ON WORLD DISARMM3NT?!!?! OMG LOL WUT KIND OF A JOK3 IS TAHT SUPOSED 2 B???!! LOL THIS BODY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY LAFT IN IT AND COMON SANSA HAS F3LT ITS LAST D3ATH THROW IN THIS WORLD1!!!1!11 WTF LOL I CANT BLM3 DA UNIETD STAETS FOR ACTNG IN ITS OWN INT3RESTS IF TEH UN JUST WANTS 2 SIT ON DA SIEDLIENS AL TEH TIEM!!!!1! OMG LOL TAHT THOS3 INTERASTS 3XT3ND PAST TEH US BORD3R IS AN UNFORTUNAET R3SULT OF GLOBALIZATION WHICH EUROPE RUSIA AND CHINA R VARY MUCH A PART OF AS W3L!!111! OMG LOL WH3N DA US SITS INSIED ITS BORDERS ITS CALED ISOLATIONIST WHEN IT ACTS OUTSIED OF THAM ITS CALAD IMPERIALIST1!!!1!1 OMG U CANT HAEV IT BOTH WAYS AND IN THIS CAES BUSH HAS D3CIEDD 2 TAEK DA FIGHT 2 THOS3 PAOPLA AND COUNTREIS WHO R A THR3AT INST3AD OF WATENG FOR ANOTH3R 9/11!!1 OMG WTF U R BUSH 2 HITLER W3L SADM HAPANS 2 WORSHIP HITLER AND HAS ADMITED 2 THIS1!111!1 WTF LOL HA WORSHIPS STALIN 21!!! IVE Y3T 2 SE BUSH SAY ANYTHNG NIEC ABOUT AITHER OF THES3 MAN YET U SAY BUSH IS DA ONE LIEK HITLER AND SOM3HOW WANTS 2 CONQU3R DA WORLD?!!??!!!! OMG LOL I HEAR LOTS OF ACUSATIONS AGANE LETS BLMA BUSH FOR AL DA WORLDS EVILS SINC3 H3S A REPUBLICAN AND A RIGHTY AND A RICH OIL BOY AD NAUS3UM111!!! OMG IVE EVAN H3ARD PEOPLE ON DA ULTRA-RIGHT PROCLAME HIM 2 B TEH ANTICHRIST WHEN TAHTS ABSURDLY ERONAOUS FROM A BIBLICAL STANDPOINT11!!11 LOL SO FAR CONSPIRACY THEOREIS NOT WITHSTANDNG BUSH HAS PRESANTED HIMS3LF AS A STRONG L3AEDR A CHRISTIAN O BO HO HE SADE TEH G WORD IN PUBLIC) AND LIEK HIM OR NOT WHEN HE SAYS HES GONG 2 DO SOMETHNG HE DO3S IT SO EVIEDNC3-WIES THEIR IS LITL3 2 BAES ANY OF TH3SE ACUSATIONS ON UNL3S OF COURSE U THINK HES GONG 2 CONQU3R TEH WORLD BY SPREADNG DA GOSPEL.11!!!!!1!!!11!11!!1 OMG U SOMEHOW KNOW BUSH IS A MORON AND A FASCIST???!!!!? WEL PONY IT UP!1111 OMG WTF LOL IF U HAEV ANY HARD 3VIEDNC3 TAHT BUSH IS SOMEHOW A TRATEOR 2 DA MERICAN P3OPLE I THINK TEH PEOPLE NED 2 KNOW SO LETS HEAR IT1!111 OMG WTF LATS SE DA PROF REAL PROF NOT JUST SOM3 QUOTES OF QUOT3S FROM POLITICALY SLANTAD COMANTAREIS I MAAN 3VIEDNC3 U CAN CONVICT WITH1!!!1!11 OMG LOL LATS GAT TEH IMP3ACHMENT H3ARNGS GONG TAHTS WT THEIR FOR AFTER AL1!1!11!1 IMM AL FOR CALNG A SPAED A SPAED IF U HAEVNT NOTIECD BY NOW AND IF BUSH IS INDED GUILTY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND THIS CAN B PROV3N BYOND A REASONABL3 DOUBT IL B RIGHT IN LIEN 2 DMN HIM FOR IT

RIGHT11!111 LOL NOW DA MANE GOAL OF TEH US IN DA MIDLE AAST IS 2 REMOV3 SADM HUSEIN FROM POW3R B/C YES HE IS A THRAAT 2 ISRAEL WHO HAPENS 2 B AN ALY OF TEH UNIETD STAETS AND YES HE IS A THREAT 2 TEH UNIETD STAETS AS WEL ALONG WIT EVARY N3IGHBORNG COUNTRY IN TEH R3GION11!1 OMG WTF HAEV U ALR3ADY FORGOTEN WUT H3 DID 2 KUWATE???!!?? U WANT 2 SE HIM DO IT AGANE?!!?!!?! OMG WTF LOL DO U HONESTLY THINK TAHT SADM HAS HAD A CHANGE OF H3ART SINCA TH3N??!?!!? OMG WTF SO DA US IS HELPNG ITS FREIND ISRAEL IN TEH PROC3S OF RAMOVNG SADM WUT UR PROBLAM WIT TAHT?!?!?? OMG WTF LOL AND TEH US IS ACTNG IN WUT IT SES AS ITS NATIONAL INTERASTS WHER3S DA PROBLEM THEYRE????! OMG LOL FRANC3 GERMANY RUSIA AND CHINA R ALSO ACTNG IN THERE OWN NATIONAL INTARESTS AS WEL YAT WHO IS DECRYNG TAHT??!!? WTF THEY ON DA OTH3R HAND R SUPORTNG THIS MURDEROUS DICTA2R BY SELNG HIM MACHIENRY AND W3APONS AND BUYNG HIS OIL IN VIOLATION OF DA UN SANCTIONS IMPOS3D ON IRAQ AL TEH WHIEL SUPORTNG HIM POLITICALY AND DIPLOMATICALY BY S2N3WALNG DA 3X3CUTION OF UN RESOLUTION 14111!!111 THINK DA UN ISNT IN BD WIT THIS GUY??!???!? WTF HOW ABOUT TAHT DRON3 PLAEN TAHT WAS CONV3NEINTLY BUREID IN DA INSP3C2RS REPORTS?????? OMG LOL WUT DOAS BLIX HAEV 2 HIED HERE??!!?!?! LOL AFTAR AL HE FOUND SO MANY WEAPONS DURNG DA 190S LIEK TAHT MISNG VX GAS TAHT IRAQ ADMITED 2 HAVNG Y3T NOW D3NEIS RIGHT?!????! LOL BUT THEN TEH WAAPONS INSP3CTIONS WARE A JOK3 FROM DA START AND THEYVE BEN A JOKE ONC3 AGANE!1!11 OMG LOL TEH W3APONS INSPEC2RS WERE NOT SENT BAK IN2 IRAQ THIS TIEM AROUND 2 GO ON A BUG HUNT FOR IRAQS NONAXISTANT ARS3NAL TH3Y W3R3 S3NT IN 2 SHOW WH3THER OR NOT IRAQ WAS COMPLYNG FULY WIT DA RESOLUTION TAHT IRAQ AGRED WITH1!1!1!1 LOL WAL IRAQ IS NOT COMPLYNG THERE TURNNG OV3R WEAPON AFTER W3APON TAHT THEY DIDNT HAEV!1!!!!! WTF Y TURN THEM OVER 3XC3PT 2 GAT BLIX AND HIS MERY MORONS 2 SAY SE DA INSP3CTIONS R WORKNG WARE TURNNG UP STUF IN ORD3R 2 STAL FOR TIEM 2 POSITION TROPS AND 2 TWIST TEH WORLD OPINION 2WARD L3AVNG HIM ALON3???!!! OMG LOL TURNNG UP STUF DMNS THIS MAN HE SADE H3 HAD NOTHNG AND NOW HES HANDNG OVAR WUT H3 SADE HE DIDNT AVEN HAEV!!!!1 H3 LEID ON A PUBLIC INTERVEIW WIT DAN RATH3R IN FRONT OF TEH 3NTIER WORLD R3GARDNG TEH AL SMOUD MISIELS!!1!!! OMG LOL IF TH3Y WERE NOT ILAGAL THEN Y IS HE DESTROYNG TH3M HM??!?! WTF SADM HUS3IN IS A MURDARAR AND A LIAR1111!1!1 LOL A LIAR ONC3 A LIAR TWIEC 3VIEDNCE HAS B3N PRES3NT3D AND HE IS GUILTY AS CHARGED1!!1 OMG ACORDNG 2 DA RESOLUTION WAR IS MANDAETD AS A RESULT OF SADM REFUSNG 2 DISARM1!!!!! OMG EV3RYONA NU HA WUDNT YAT THAY THOUGHT TEH US WAS BLUFNG LAST YEAR1!!11!1 WTF WEL THEYRE BLUF WAS CALED TH3Y SIGN3D TEH RESOLUTION AND NOW THAY DONT WANT 2 PONY UP NOW TAHT DA GME IS OVAR111!!1! WTF LOL DA ONLY RAASON THES3 COUNTREIS CHOSA 2 IGNORE DA OBVIOUS IS AITHER THEY R SO SPIENLES AND TIMID AS 2 B IMPOT3NT WHEN FAECD WIT A REAL DANGAR OF WAR TAHT THEY COWER AND ACUSE DA US OF BNG DA EVIL POWER HERA OR ALSE TH3Y R SOMEHOW COLABORATNG WIT IRAQ AND DONT WANT DA TRUTH 2 COME OUT!!11!1! LOL SO WHICH IS IT??!!?? LOL FRANCA IS SALNG MILITARY PARTS 2 IRAQ AS W3 SP3AK!!11 WTF DID TEH UNIETD STAETS LOSE 2000 PAOPL3 LIEBRATNG FRANC3 FROM DA G3RMANS JUST 2 HAEV FRANCE TURN AGANEST IT AND SIED WIT THIS TYRANT NOW?!??? LOL AND JUST Y IS IT U DONT HAAR AL THASE ARAB NEIGHBOR STAETS 2 IRAQ COMPLANENG ABOUT DA US WANTNG 2 TAEK THIS GUY OUT??!??? OMG WUT IS IT ABOUT THIS MAN TAHT SCAERS THEM ANOUGH 2 LET TEH BIG BAD SATAN M3RICA GO BAT UP ON A FELOW ISLMIC NATION?!??! OMG WTF LOL I HAEVNT 3VEN H3ARD ARAFAT COND3MN THIS!1!!1! OMG WTF TAHTS A HUG3 RISK POLITICALY IF AND I SAY IF AL TH3SE ARABS R AS ANTI-MARICAN AS AVARYONA SEMS 2 WANT 2 BLEIV3!!!1!!1 WTF LOL U CAN IMAGIEN TEH BITARNES AND RAS3NTM3NT IN DA US GOV3RNMENT WH3N UR SO-CAL3D ALEIS IN EUROPE OPOSE U ON THERE OWN SIGNED RASOLUTION AND TEH ANTI-MARICAN 2WELHEADS AS PEOPL3 SEM 2 LIEK 2 CAL TH3M IN THIS COUNTRY R TEH ON3S WHO R ON UR SIED!1!1111! WTF LOL BUT THEN ARABS R JUST PEOPL3 LIEK ANYON3 ELSE AFTER AL EXCAPT THEIR A LOT CLOSER 2 TEH PROBLEM!1!11 AS FOR IRAQ NOT BNG A THR3AT 2 TEH US IRAQ DOAS REPRAS3NT A THRAAT 2 TEH UNIETD STAETS B/C SADM BANKROLS TERORISTS!!!! OMG IF H3 BANKROLS TEH FMILEIS OF SUICIED BOMBRS WHO BLOW TH3MS3LVAD UP IN T3L AVIV U CAN BT H3S BANKROLNG OTHER T3RORISTS AS W3L!11!11 OMG WTF LOL U WANT 2 SE DA FRE WORLD BROUGHT 2 ITS KNES???!! WTF LOL U WANT 2 TOK ABOUT PROTACTNG US INT3RESTS???!? OMG WTF JUST WATE UNTIL THAY START RUNNG SUICIED BOAT ATAKS ON OIL TANKARS WIT IRAQI DOLARSIGNS FINANCNG IT11!11!!1 WTF LOL THAN WHAN UR PAYNG $60+11111 LOL A GALON AT TEH PUMP FOR TEH CHEAP STUF DONT BITCH ABOUT IT!!!!!!11 WTF IF CAN THINK ABOUT IT U KNOW TEH BAD GUYS ALREADY HAEV!!!!11! OMG

DEV/NUL I WONT BLAST U FOR UR DACISION 2 STAY OUT OF ANY ARMAD FORC3S TAHT IS UR PARSONAL DACISION1!1!1 LOL TEH US MILITARY IS A VOLUNTER FORCE THEYRE IS NO DRAFT IN PLAEC 2 HAEV 2 DODG3!!11!1!1 WTF LOL HOWEVER AS A WARIOR IN ANOTHAR KIND OF ARMY I WIL CHASTIES U RAGARDNG UR COM3NTS ABOUT IMPLYNG TAHT UR SOMAHOW SMARTER AND THEIR SUP3RIOR 2 PAOPLA IN DA ARMED FORC3S11!1! OMG I CUD 3ASILY TURN AROUND AND JUST SAY UR JUST A COWARD AND AFRADE 2 FIGHT!!!1 I WONT DO TAHT I WIL R3SP3CT UR DECISION AND UR R3ASONS AND IN TURN I WUD ASK U 2 R3SPECT TEH DACISIONS AND REASONS OF THOSA WHO R WILNG 2 FIGHT INSTAAD OF CALNG THEM STUPID1111!1! LOL IF U DONT UNDERSTAND Y PEOPLE WUD AVER CHOSA 2 FIGHT THEN LET ME SPEL IT OUT FOR U!!11 OMG PEOPL3 WHO JOIN A MILITARY JOIN FOR ON3 OF TWO REASONS THEY HAEV 2 OR THEY WANT 211!111!! OMG WTF LOL THOSA WHO HAEV 2 DO IT B/C THEIR CONSCRIPTS TH3Y HAEV NO CHOIEC!!!1 LOL THAY RISK THERE LIEVS IN BATLA OR TH3Y GO 2 TEH 2RTURE CHMBRS (OR JUST PRISON IN TEH LAS BARBARIC NATIONS)1!!! THEIR ALSO RAERLY LOYAL 2 THOSE THEY HAEV 2 FIGHT FOR!1!!!1 WTF LOL LOK AT IRAQ THERE ALR3ADY TRYNG 2 SUREND3R AND DA WAR HAS NOT BGUN1!11!!! OMG DA OTHER KIND OF SOLDEIR IS A SOLIDEIR B/C H3 WANTS 2 B BUT HA FIGHTS NOT B/C H3 WANTS 2 GO 2 WAR BUT B/C HA KNOWS DA COSTS OF COMPLAECNCY1!!!11 OMG U ASK ANYON3 WHOS FOUGHT IN A WAR IF THEY LIEK WAR AND TEH ANSWAR WIT DA EXC3PTION OF A FEW NUTBALS WIL B A UNANIMOUS NO!111 PEOPL3 WHO FIGHT CHOSA 2 FIGHT NOT B/C THEY HAET WUT AT DA OTHER END OF THEYRE GUN BUT B/C TH3Y LOVA WUT BHIND IT!!1!! OMG LOL THEY FIGHT 2 DAFEND OR TH3Y FIGHT 2 FRE TEH OPR3SAD11!!!! LOL DA HONORABL3 MOTIEVS FOR FIGHTNG R 2 PROTACT WUT U R ABOUT DEFEND TEH WEAK FRE THOS3 ENSLAEVD AND UNDO TEH WIKED!1!!!! WTF IT TAEKS COURAEG AND COMITMENT 2 DO THIS!1!! OMG WTF LOL HIGH WORDS YAS BUT IT IS DA TRUTH!11!!1 OMG LOL HAEV U EVAR KILED ANYTHNG DEV?!????? WTF DO U KNOW WUT IT IS LIEK 2 TAEK A LIEF????! OMG LOL DO U KNOW WUT KIND OF LASTNG SCARS TAHT L3AEVS ON P3OPLE?!??? OMG LOL IVE SEN TEH LAST BR3ATH OF MANY CREATURES DAV THOSA OF WHICH I HAEV ENDED MYSELF SOME IVA JUST BEN THEIR FOR AS A FREIND 2 EAES THERE PASNG Y3T NAVAR IS THEIR A DISRESPACT FOR LIEF!11! WTF IVE LOK3D IN2 DA AY3S OF DA DYNG AS THEY SLIPAD AWAY GONA FROM THIS WORLD FORAVER1!11! IV3 WEPAD OV3R FREINDS I HAEV LOST SANG OVER THERE BODEIS TEH BAUTY OF THERE LIEVS 2 TEH WIND AND LEFT THEM FOREVAR!!!1111 OMG WTF AS A PREDA2R I VALUE LIEF I RESP3CT LIEF AND I KNOW HOW PRACIOUS AND DALICAET IT IS11!111! OMG LOL AS A WARIOR I HAEV FOUGHT DA MOST EVIL OF THNGS SO TAHT PEOPL3 LIEK U CAN HAEV A RIGHT 2 EVAN EXIST MUCH L3S AXPRAS AN OPINION ON THNGS WITHOUT HAVNG A GUN POINT3D AT UR HEAD WH3NEVER U OP3N UR MOUTH111!!! OMG LOL MOST SOLDEIRS DONT FIGHT B/C THEY WANT 2 KIL TH3Y FIGHT B/C THEY KNOW DA CONSEQUENCES OF DONG NOTHNG AND B/C SOMABODY HAS 2 ST3P UP 2 TEH PLAET!1111!!1 WTF LOL NOBODY EVER WANTS 2 SE THEYRE FREINDS THAMSALVES OR LITL3 CHILDRAN CAUGHT IN TEH WAY BLOWN 2 PEICES SHOT UP DYNG ALON3 BLEDNG FOR HOURS FROM A S2MACH WOUND HAK3D 2 PEICES BY A SWORD RIP3D IN HALF BY DA TREADS OF A TANK ROLNG OVER THEM OR TAEKN AWAY 2 A PRISON CMP 2 A FAET WORS3 THAN DEATH!!!!!1 WTF THEY KNOW TAHT TEH CONSAQUENC3S WHAN GOD P3OPL3 DO NOTHNG IN DA FAEC OF DANGER R HOR3NDOUSLY WORS31111!!! WTF DA OPOSIET OF WAR ISNT PEAEC ITS SLAEVRY11!!!! LOL HITL3R INVAEDD POLAND AND PEOPLE DID NOTHNG!!!! HITLER INVAEDD BLGIUM AND FRANCA AND PEOPLE DID NOTHNG!!1111 WTF WH3N P3OPLE FINALY DID DO SOMETHNG IT WAS DMN3D NEAR 2 LAET AL B/C P3OPLE DIDNT WANT ANOTHER WAR1!1!! WTF LOL IMAGIEN WUT CUD HAEV HAP3NED IF A F3W MORE ARECRAFT CAREIRS W3RA IN P3ARL HARBOR TAHT DAY?????! OMG OR IF JAPAN HAD LAUNCHED A FUL-SCAEL LAND INVASION ON TEH CALIFORNIA COAST?!??!?!!! OMG WTF OF IF ENGLAND HAD SADE W3 DONT WANT WAR NO MAT3R WUT LIEK FRANCE IS DONG NOW OR IF GARMANY HAD D3VELOPAD DA A-BOMB WEL BFORE VE DAY?!??!!?! OMG WTF LOL DA BITER TRUTH IS TAHT FREDOM IS WRIT3N IN BLOD BY THOSE NOT AFRADE 2 SPIL IT OR ELSE TEH BLOD OF TEH FRE IS SPILAD BY THOSA WHO 3NSLAEV TH3M1111!1! OMG WTF IMAGIEN A BOT STMPNG ON UR FAEC FOREVAR TAHT IS TEH R3SULT OF COMPLAECNCY AND TURNNG A BLIND AY3 2WARD AVIL FOR3IGN AND DOMASTIC!1!1111 OMG WTF LOL THEYRE WAS A TIEM IN THIS WORLD WHEN COURAEG AND HONOR M3ANT SOMATHNG WHARA IT WAS BTER 2 DEI ON UR FET AND STAND UP FOR WUT IS RIGHT AND GOD THAN IT WAS 2 LIEV ON UR KNES JUST 2 STAY ALIEV1111 WTF EVERYONE DEIS 3VENTUALY KNEL DOWN FOR NOW IF U WANT BUT IT WIL ONLY H3LP DA BLAED 2 CUT U!!!!! OMG WTF LOL SE FROM MAH VEIWPOINT ITS RILLY PR3TY SIMPLA!111!1 OMG WTF LOL MAYB IMM NOT SOPHISTICAETD ENOUGH FOR MOST HAVNG AN ANIMAL MIND AND BNG A BIRD-BRANE AFTER AL BUT 2 M3 THNGS EITHER AER OR TH3Y AERNT1!11 OMG WTF LOL SUR3 THEIR R SOM3 SHAEDS OF GREY INBTWEN BUT AV3RYTHNG IN LIEF IS A QUASTION OF PERC3PTION AND TRUTH!!!!1 WTF LOL PARCEPTION IS WUT P3OPLA REACT 2 NOT DA TRUTH1!!11!! OMG WTF IF P3OPL3 PARCEIEV BUSH 2 B A BAD GUY THEYL BLEIVE TAHT IF TAHTS WT WANT 2 BLEIVE1!!111! OMG IF PAOPLE BLEIVE SADM 2 B A BAD GUY THEYL BLEIV3 TAHT 211!11!1 WTF LOL DA QU3STION IS DO U LAT UR DESIER 2 BLEIVE SOMATHNG 2 B A CERTANE WAY OVERIED UR REASON WHAN PRASENT3D WIT FACTS 2 DA CONTRARY???!!!!! OMG R U WILNG 2 CHANGE UR MIND IF U SE 3VIEDNCA TAHT U R WRONG??!?!! LOL I SE A LOT OF AVIEDNCE SO FAR AGANEST SADM BUT VERY LITLE AGANEST BUSH111!!! OMG LOL I SE A LOT OF EVIEDNCE OF COLABORATION BTWEN FRANC3 G3RMANY CHINA RUSIA AND IRAQ RIGHT NOW!11!1!1 WTF LOL I SE A UNIETD NATIONS TAHT IS COWARDLY AND OVERLY PACIFIST WIT A HIS2RY OF INACTION!1!1 OMG IVA HEARD OF NOTHNG BUT WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS FOR DA LAST TWO DECAEDS AND IT HAS BAN NO DIF3R3NT FOR AL OF HUMAN HIS2RY111! OMG WTF THIS AL DISTURBS ME NOT RILLY SO MUCH TAHT Y3T ANOTHER WAR IS UPON MANKIND LIEK TAHTS BEN ANY DIFARANT FROM HOW IT WAS 500 YEARS AGO BIG SURPRIES BIG DAAL ONLY TEH R HAS CHANGED!1!!1! WTF WUT DISTURBS ME IS TAHT NOW PAOPLE SEM 2 B MOR3 INT3RASTED IN WISHNG THNGS 2 B A CARTANE WAY AND ACTNG AS IF THEY SHUD B A C3RTANE WAY INST3AD OF DAALNG WIT HOW THNGS R RIGHT NOW11!!!!!! WTF I WISH PEOPLE CUD S2P FIGHTNG BUT 2 BLEIVA TAHT THNGS WIL CHANGE ANY TIEM SON WUD B FOLISH SELF D3LUSION1!!!!!!! OMG LOL FOR DA AEVRAEG SONGBIRD ITS SIMPLE U SE A CAT AND U FLY AWAY AND SQUAWK 2 DA OTH3R BIRDS 2 DO DA SM3 OR U GAT 3AETN!11!1! OMG LOL RIGHT NOW I SE ONE CAT ON TEH WORLD STAEG FOR C3RTANE AND H3 IS BUSY FATHERNG MANY KITENS11111!!1 OMG WTF LOL I ALSO SE MANY LITLE BIRDS WHO LIEK 2 SE CATLIEK SHADOWS 3VERYWH3RA1!!! OMG LOL WHIEL TH3Y MAY FEL MORA AELRT IN DONG SO THAN DA OTHER BIRDS WHO R JUST GONG ABOUT THERE BUSIENS IF THEY FLY AWAY AT 3VERY SHADOW AND NAV3R STAY IN DA GRAS TH3Y WIL STARV3 AND B WEAEKNED IN THERE PARANOIA AND THAY WIL NOT HAEV TEH STRENGTH 2 FLY WHEN DA OBVIOUS CAT FINALY DOES DECIED 2 SHOW HIS FAEC AND POUNCA11111!!! OMG WTF LOL SUCH BIRDS 3ARN THERE FAET AL ON THERE OWN1!111!!! WTF[/color]

Frankly, this amuses me so much, I might just turn this into a trend and just start randomly AOL'ing stuff here in CC after the topic has died...

KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol:   Oob.. you did it again  :lol:

might aswell put it through the pornalizer :]
that's always good for a few chuckles too

Not on my watch! :o