Wirehead Studios

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar21.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7108-2003Mar21.html)

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

That's good news indeed. If more ppl will surrender, it will mean less war -> less material damage -> less casulties.  :)

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

is it only propaganda if the other side reports it?



until i have a non-biased source stating the samt hing ill considder it to be less the belivable

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

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

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

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

(http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20030323.gif)

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

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

Bleh, the Coalition forces are doing what the UN should have been doing but werent, atm the UN is an example of how well it can not do something.

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

Sadam = Cockroach
Bush =  Exterminator

:wall:

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

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

Face it, Saddam is being DEMONISED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus endeth my rant - for now...  :evil:

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

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1048389497622 (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1048389497622)

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

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

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

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/...3/3/3-23-23.htm (http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-23-23.htm)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN RESPONSE TO ASSAMITE

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

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

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

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

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

the next paragraph will be broken up into more manageable bits

#1: YES - does it matter that he said he would do it?  did hitler say he was going to go on a genocidal rampage before he did it?

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

erm, if i'm not mistaken, "wholesale bombing of a country" basically means carpet-bombing, i.e. flying armadas of bombers over the country dropping thousands of bombs, basically with the intent of leveling everything.  every single missile fired by the coalition has been explicitly targeted at areas of power of saddam's regime, i.e. governmental buildings and presidential palaces.

no, they are not in a "paradise", as they should be in ideally.  however, our primary goal there, as it is now in iraq, was to remove from power a corrupt dictatorial government that either directly attacked us or our allies, or funded and/or harbored terrorists who attacked us or our allies (in the case of the taliban, they harbored and funded the al quaeda terrorist network).  we instated a government there selected from rebels whose values are similar to ours, i.e. peace, freedom, and democracy.  however, this government does not have as much power in afghanistan as we would like, and cannot control much of the country outside a few of the more populous cities.  as a result, the feuding warlords and bandits and such run rampant in poorer, lesser populated areas outside of the major cities.  however, we have our hands full trying to depose another enemy government, as well as continuing our attempt to eradicate the remnants of al quaeda in afghanistan.  perhaps once things settle down a bit with regards to the war on saddam and the war on terrorists, we will be able to lend a hand and help afghanistan stabilize itself.

your oppositon of this war is your opinion, and as granted by the constitution of the united states of america, you are free to express it.  however, i am free to express my opinion and facts known to me to rebut your opinion ;) .  i'm glad you support our troops though.  since we have committed them to the war, the best we can do now is to hope and pray for their safe return.  however, you say you want this war to end.  don't we all?  however, we can't just pull out now, leaving saddam's regime crippled but not destroyed.  although it would take him a while to rebuild, his sole goal after rebuilding would be to seek revenge.

in summary, my opinion of saddam and his government: (http://www.speakeasy.org/~ltphil/images/diesaddam.gif)

~

now i'm thirsty.  a nice pint of guinness should rectify that.  :beer:

ah, much better.  now, being that it's 2:45AM...   :zzz:

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

Way to go Tab :D



A war which US supported by importing weapons to Iraq.


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

 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

I agree with that last statement Phil. When the hell does a country like neutral Belgium have the right to call us idoits? Um....I guess they do because they are more rightous than us. Oh wait, wasn't it you guys who were raped by Germany during WWII and wasn't us EVIL Americans who pulled your fat out of the fire. You know, that's another thing I don't get. We help som many countries around the world and we get treated like shit. I would give up by now if I were in charge.

As for this America is always right crap, um, yea, we are, because we are the biggest, baddest, kid on the block and you better give us your cooperation or we'll knock you on your ass. Is that a fair enough responce Ass?

That doesn't make it right, nor does it justify anything we do. It merely makes us the exact thing we claim to be fighting, terrorists! The biggest baddest kid on the block just needs an ass kicking to put him in his rightful place, no different than any other nieghborhood bully.

These few mindless automatons are who I believe is responsible for the image most of the rest of the world has of us.  However, I also blame those who hear the opinions of these people and believe that the majority of U.S. citizens feel their country can do whatever they want.


Contrary to what you apparently believe, and what Daman would have you believe, we do not go around stomping on every country who disagrees with us.  If this were the case, then why have we not attacked France, Germany, Russia, and China?  Oh yeah.  Because they have done nothing to harm us.  We respect their opinions, but in this case, we felt that their opinion of us was not as important as the threat Saddam's regime posed to us.  We are not terrorists.  Terrorists strike with cowardice, killing innocent civilians, and then go back into hiding.  When we strike, we strike hard and fast, hitting our intended target while trying to avoid civilian casualties, and try to take the opinions of other nations into consideration before we do it.

Main Entry: ter?ror?ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1795
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
- ter?ror?ist  /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun
- ter?ror?is?tic  /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: ter?ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
Date: 14th century
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
synonym see FEAR
- ter?ror?less  /-l&s/ adjective

Main Entry: co?er?cion
Pronunciation: -'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
: the act, process, or power of coercing

Main Entry: co?erce
Pronunciation: kO-'&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co?erced; co?erc?ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose -- more at ARK
Date: 15th century
1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat
synonym see FORCE
- co?erc?ible  /-'&r-s&-b&l/ adjective

Hmmm... Yeah...  <_<

yes the U.S. uses coercion sometimes, and i generally disagree with that tactic.  but calling us terrorists is horseshit.  how many french citizens wake up every day wondering if we are going to blow them up?  or chinese citizens?  laotian?  chilean?  hmmm... didn't think so.  therefore i fail to see how your dictionary definitions apply to us.  i'm sure you're going to point to #4 in the "terror" entry, so i'm going to beat you to the punch.

we are not attempting to use terror to coerce the iraqi government to do anything.  they did not comply with international law, and we are being the enforcer in this case.  because saddam has repeatedly openly defied the U.N., we have decided that he is a threat to the free world, and will be removed.  perhaps it is not our place to be the enforcers, but if not, then who?  i didn't see the U.N. taking any action...  once saddam's regime is removed from power, the sovereign nation of iraq will be neutral with the U.S., and possibly even an ally.  yes we will have influence in helping to set up their initial government after saddam is removed from power, but let's face it: they aren't going to be able to set up their own government themselves.

That's what Saddam has done to his people, and what Al Qaida and other radical militant Islamic types do.

Saddam's regime.

Well that's how it USED to work when people hijacked airplanes just to take hostages...

Coercing can take many forms, can be good, can be bad.  A criminal robbing a bank is a bad form of coercing.  A police officer aiming a pistol at that bank robber to arrest him is a good form of coercing.

Of course I understand your "point" here was to again somehow villify the United States.  Something I think a lot of people fail to grasp here is that Osama, Saddam, Hitler, Stalin... these people care nothing about life.  The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 and those like them care nothing about your high ideals.  Their whole intention was murder.  GENOCIDE is what these people are after, nothing more, nothing less.  They will not negotiate, they will not capitulate, they won't surrender, and they won't stop.  They will keep killing, and killing, and killing, until there is nobody left to kill.  Give them the power to carry out the greatest evils and they will.  You cannot reason with or re-educate or de-program these people.  All you can do is kill them before they kill you.  That is the simple truth of dealing with evil men.  Their hearts are hardened, and their pleasures are sadistic, and full of murderous violence for no other purpose than to perpetuate suffering, and death.  Inaction and complacency will not avail you, and will only allow this cancer to grow.  If you're ready to face extinction then continue to do nothing and you will. :zzz:

Heh, if I truely believed that bit of sarcasm I would be a fool.....
Understand something, we are not justified in any killing, necessary or not. It is, however, justified that we protect ourselves. We are the only superpower, true, and we have the responsibilty to protect the world from such evil and tyranny such as Saddam's Regime. We will not take an attack on our soil sitting down. We will not let appeasment take place (we all remember Chamberlain, yes?). It is ridiculous to think that we don't need to fight this. It just is. A cold, if not treated can kill you. Saddam is a sickness in the world and must be dealt with. Period. This whole protest thing is just another excuse for people to be hippies again. It is simply not necessary. Hippies had their place in the unjustified war of Vietnam, not in this era.

Let me add this also, America is and was always far from perfect. We were imperialists, racists, isolationalists, everything not good at one point in our history. So no, we are not self-righteous. I believe you have been influenced by a hell of a lot of proganda where ever you live ASSMITE.

BTW Phil, I wrote that first post so ASSIMITE may squirm. It is far from what I truely believe.

"Understand something, we are not justified in any killing, necessary or not. It is, however, justified that we protect ourselves."

If ultimately protecting yourself means the killing of another, that act would shred that statement's logic apart in confliction with its definition. I really don't like it =/

"Let me add this also, America is and was always far from perfect."

I also don't like that line... America is a working country with a working government.  Imperfect? Yes. Far from perfect? That depends on your definition of what is perfect. I see perfect as an idea of when acts reach their maximum potential. For example, you could fire off a perfect rocket in Quake - in the sense that it did the most damage that it could do to your opponet(s). Being human, we rarely reach perfection in most of everything we do. However, to say that something is far from perfect implies that there is something severely wrong. Back to the Quake example, firing off a rocket that hits your teammate or does barely any damage is far from perfect. When you say that America is and was always far from perfect, I imagine a country near-anarchy. America does have its flaws, but it has a humungous host of praiseworthy traits as well. Don't slander the 'States with misused words please =/

"We were imperialists, racists, isolationalists, everything not good at one point in our history. So no, we are not self-righteous."

'Patriotism' is a form of self-righteousness, and there's a lot of that going around these days  ;)

In short, I think you're arguing the right thing for the wrong reasons DaMan.  :thud:

- What are your thoughts on if we are fighting this war because of an overdose of 'Patriotism' - caused by national pride instilled in the population, propaganda stirring up an explosive additude, and a third-world country that set off a spark, causing a violent reaction?

This entire thread has been a great read to me - I've learned a lot of insight on the value of the war from reading these long posts [both moral and economical]. Keep it up - I want more!  :)

that may be the case, but i wish you wouldn't post it, all it does is give the super-left-wingers out there more ammunition.

not that i'm against liberalism, or conservatism (i think that's a word).  but extremes on either end of the scale are a bad thing, and those who are on one of the extremes have generally lost touch with reality...

on a funny note, my dad told me about a 50's movie where an alien species with the power to destroy the entire earth lands somewhere in america, fearing destruction the governments of the major countries of the world unite and tell the aliens 'alright, here we are, we'll be nice and not blow each other apart anymore' the alien replys ' WHAT?! YOU GUYS ARE A WARRIOR RACE!! YOUR SUPPOSED TO FIGHT EACH OTHER!!' and then with a snap of fingers the earth is shown exploding in the final scene......



 :D  :D  :lol:  :lol:

Not my idea of humor... But ironic none the less  ;)

well it was funnier im sure if you watched the movie.. im giving a third hand description so its no as funny as when my dad tells it..

here's (http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2003_dixiechicks.html) something I find funny and actually goes along with the current theme =)

I understand. I just think it is a good example of "Patriotism"......

actually phil  hitler did say what he wanted to do just that not many bothered to read mein kampf and take it seriously

LOL  :lol:

What about this (http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2002_homeland_seal.html) and that? (http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2003_1984sequel.html)  :)

Here's a general question to everyone posting here:

Where are your sources of info backing up your statements of facts?

I'd like to see some kind of documentation backing what some of you guys are saying. Just a request so that I can study the same material and see if I come up with the same conclusions =]
 - Tekhead

ive backed everything ive said with articles and links.. just check the old debate post for that.. anything i dont have specific proof of i state as my opinion or that im not 100% sure and ask for the other person to look it up if they dont beleive me.

If you're talking about those last two links I posted, they're nothing more than sattire... In fact, I believe it says that at the bottom of the pages  ;)

The really good news is, food shipments are arriving in IRAQ now and the people don't absolutely hate us. Many of them are turning against Saddam in the Southeastern towns. Anybody that dissolves people in acid if they criticize his rule must be really sadistic. Sure nobody likes to be invaded, but the Iraqi's are better off without Saddam. Now, the BAD news is that it will probably take 30 or 40 years to hold a government together over there that's not as bad as Saddam. Just like it's going to take a long time to get Afghanistan under control. Anywhere that still has tribal conflicts going is more or less f*cked.

I've been knee deep in University for the past couple of weeks and I see that this stuff just doesn't end here. Rather than commenting on the fact that Iraq had and probibly still has an army that has 6 digits and several thousand really aren't going to make a difference I leave you with some links

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4552895,00.html (http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4552895,00.html)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/mi...ion=/printstory (http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D0303190157mar19§ion=/printstory)

Very interesting reading, although I did skip most of bin Laden's letter.  Oh I know "It's the Jews' fault" for the Palestinian issue and the USA's fault for the terrorists becoming murderers, and it always will be to some people, but then trusting in Osama's interpretation of the Torah would be as wise as trusting in a Jewish interpretation of the Koran.  If one is to argue that the terrorists are somehow vindicated for lashing out at the US because of the US's support of Israel then I suppose that the US is by the same note justified in bombing Iraq for no more reason than Iraq's support of the Palestinian suicide bombers.  The door swings both ways, after all, and the tit-for-tat blame game goes on forever this way.  Wars started for "religious" reasons always twist the truth for political gain, and those who perpetuate them are seldom the pious men they pawn themselves off as.  Kind of reminds me of the "America's Army" game, where no matter which team you're on the other guy is ALWAYS the bad guy.  In real life the opposite is usually true.  Murderers know full well who they are, and choose to do so anyway.  If the solution to the terrorist problem were as simple as letting the Palestinians have all of Israel, I wonder then what those in favor of such a policy would suggest the world do with the Jews.  I also find it interesting that no Arab country is willing to accept the Palestinians into their countries if Israel DID actually expell them.  Some friends, eh?  I highly doubt that the US severing ties to Israel at this point would change the minds of fanatics and terrorists.  If anything, it would only embolden them.  Show weakness to a predator and it will attack, and the predator of radical Islam exists for one purpose:  spreading radical Islam and killing any who are opposed to it.  Christianity had it's dark ages during the Inquisition and the Crusades when men were tortured under forced conversions, the belief that such pains to force someone to convert were preferable to the pains suffered in hell, which were eternal.  Those who died and did not convert would have served the devil by drawing people away from the faith and corrupting them, so they were damned anyway, and if they died it was still a service to God and to their poor soul since they would have fewer sins on them and suffer less, and would not be able to corrupt people in the world of the living any longer.  Nevermind the fact that Jesus taught no such thing should ever be done, but men often like to try to make the Almighty's decisions on what's the best way to run His plan themselves.  Radical Islam does the exact same thing, convert or die, it's the will of Allah, etc, whereas moderate Islam does not.  Like anything, religion can be used as a tool for good, bringing out the compassion in men to help the poor and downtrodden, bringing hope, or for evil when men kill and torture in the name of God somehow without the fear of any divine reprisal for their murders.  Perhaps someday the Muslim population of the world will outgrow its own dark ages and tire of the bloodshed.  Until then, regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict I say let God sort them out if they don't stop their fighting over that scrap of land.  Both sides have blood on their hands, and really should just learn to play nice or one day maybe God WILL tire of it and bring peace Himself, perhaps in a way that they would find somewhat undesireable.

While much of the text presented in the links appears to exist for the purpose of unearthing a closet full of skeletons for Mr. Rumsfeld, the political and strategic considerations of the foreign policy at the time, and the mistakes inherent in it do help to paint a broader picture of how this problem was fed, allowed to grow, and eventually blossomed into what it is today.  This just goes to further show why maintaining a "dialogue" with bad people never works, and why catering to ruthless dictators because the alternative looks bad means you'll have to eventually confront them later when they turn on you.  The bible has a good passage regarding this, Matthew 7:6 - "Give not what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you."  Historical hindsight makes it easier to see the mistakes of the past than the potential mistakes of the present.  It also tends to be a rule that future generations end up cleaning up the messes leftover from past ones.  "Sins of the father", if you will, history is full of this shortsightedness of men.  The present situation in Iraq is no different.  It's also even more apparant from these facts you've presented that leaving this madman in power would only leave a greater threat to deal with later as has often been said.  Of course, the situation at the time was much different when these events happened, with the spectre of the USSR and potential nuclear anihilation, the spread of Communism, and the world clearly divided between Soviet influence and Western influence (except for the middle east and Africa) the US foreign policy was pretty much of a mind that Russia = bad, USA = good, and anything that helped Russia was bad for the US.  It got a bit muddy in the Middle East, but radical Islam was also a threat to US interests so Iraq looked like the lesser of two evils when compared to Iran which was a hotbed of terrorists, and still is to this day.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", as it were, was the policy at the time but that is a foolish way of thinking.  After the cold war there was no more "evil empire" to deal with, although Communism still existed in the world, the threat of nuclear holocaust seemed to have evaporated.  The 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq put Iraq on the map as an aggressive state (as if it wasn't already) but rather than risk a full-scale war, the idea that Saddam could be "contained" was floated, and then tried for the next decade.  Americans had become too squeamish at the thought of the loss of American life in war following Vietnam, so risking a full-scale engagement was viewed to be unacceptible due to those socio-political constraints.  All of that changed on 9/11, when the US found out once again that it is not immune from assault when a handful of terrorists flew airplanes into skyscrapers and killed over 3,000 civilians, and the number of countries in the "nuclear club" as well as those capable of producing other non-conventional weapons had also since skyrocketed.  With the threat of those weapons falling into the hands of terrorists willing to commit suicide attacks against civilians, and the policy of non-proliferation and containment which relied on the goodwill of bad regimes not to arm them becoming increasingly transparent as an unsustainable strategy, a policy shift was inevitable.  Perhaps that made people finally realize that you cannot deal with the devil and not expect to pay for it later.  The fact that it took 3,000 deaths to wake the American people up to this fact is sad, but not as sad as the fact that the memory of so many Americans, including some in the leadership, is so short that they want to avoid conflict at all costs when doing nothing still resulted in attack.  So now the US policy has been shifted to meet that danger head on and terminate it rather than negotiate with it, a harsher policy than in years past, more aggressive, but perhaps more effective as well since it deals from a position of strength instead of weakness.  Not without it's potential for mistakes of course, and perhaps the motives of those in charge today are not geniune, in politics they seldom are, but then the same questions linger still:

Would inaction have been the lesser of two evils, or the greater?  And if the current problems facing the US are directly or indirectly a result of flawed US foreign policy, then is it not the duty and responsibility of the US to now correct such errors and remove these threats?  War is a terrible thing, and it carries a heavy price, but inaction also carries a price.  Now we wait and see if the outcome of this war is the one desired, and if the motives of those initiating it are pure, or if history once again will choose a path that mankind in its shortsightedness did not forsee.

I believe that US foreign policy has gone to the wrong direction. You should give food to the people, help them, and do some other work in Islamic countries. People would believe that you are not bad guys after all after a while. I hope that the outcome of this war is good, and US is in Iraq only to remove "security problem", but what I've seen so far doesn't indicate that. I will wait until the war is over to give my final judgement, though.

Ok, whats the deal with the borked looking page?

http://members.cox.net/ppk1/Borked.jpg (http://members.cox.net/ppk1/Borked.jpg)  <-look

You got me Lil, page loads fine here.

Well, yes everybody is justified because they're all full of shit. The US is full of shit for 50 or so years of meddling and bungling, mostly in the name of containing communism. Bin Laden and the Jews are full of shit for their uncompromising interpretations of their own religions. Jerry Fallwell and the Christian coalition is guilty of the same thing as well as meddling in politics. Arabs that support Saddam are full of shit because they're better off without him. They're actually better off without those kings and sheiks, but the U.S. has been propping those pigs up for decades because of the oil. The U.S. did that to prop up the great oil companies of the world who live only for dollars and hold the rest of us for ransom because all our cars need gasoline. They can do that because of all that money which means they can buy votes to keep alternate fuel programs and public transportation from being started. It's a hell of a mess ain't it? It's had it's roots in events over 130 years ago. Ironically it was the English that started it with their empire building. If they hadn't stuck their noses in the arabs tents, the arabs would still be bedoin tribes on camelback. Also I saw a rifle just like Saddam's yesterday only this one was more beaten up and cruddy. It was a Turkish Lebel rifle, made in Turkey in 1943 but no doubt based on original French designs. It even used the same 8 X 50mm Lebel cartridges. Basicly, a FRENCH gun like everything else he's got. French Russian or American, because we all used to help Saddam. Yesterday's ally, today's enemy. <_<

Um......er....gee.....hrm...... :thud:

theres a new word being kicked around, called normility abuse, or normality abuse, or similare, it refers to a culture that goes along with stuff that they know is wrong but has been going on for a long time, anyways, last night i was tuned into this radio talk show, and this iraqi phoned in and voiced her opinion of bush, she moved to the US in 83', and she totally concured that bush was in the right, and suddam needed to be removed from power, and told a rather upseting story, and made it clear to many of these protesters of the war to move to iraq, and live under their culture, and suddams rule for a year before making such protests, she also went and stated that many iraqis were scared to fight suddam, and they were rightly so to be scared do to whole familys going missing and such not, she praised coalition forces, saying the iraqi people needed their support in ridding iraq of suddam and his goon squads

anyways make what you will of this, being radio i cant verify the legitamicy of it

Well, uhh, yes, Saddam is filth all right. The sad thing is that our government ever propped up that bassturd in the first place. There's been so much bungling for so long that now it'll probably take a hundred years to untangle the mess. It's good to see that we can bomb Baghdad without reducing the whole city to rubble and that we can selectively wipe out Saddam's goons without erasing the whole Iraqi population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2003Apr7.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45026-2003Apr7.html)

A really bad dude is now dead.

Amen to that.

Who's dead? Did they get Saddam? Unfortunately he's just one of many. Now we've got to find Bin Laden before he finds us.

he already found you.

Indeed, in a very big way.  The dude who was dead, and you're kind of late if you read this just recently, was "Chemical Ali".  Saddam's official status right now is unknown.  Some think he's dead, others think he's fled to Syria or is still roaming around Iraq somewhere.  We may never know for sure, but I doubt he can do any harm directly.  Indirectly... well, if he shipped all his nerve gas off to Syria that's another story.  We'll just have to wait and see.

Erm, is anyone else troubled by the fact that Iraqi Shiites are mounting huge protests against the U.S. presence, not to mention the fact that soldiers SHOT into several of them?

Apparently, the postwar peace will be much more difficult than the war... But we already knew that.

hmm, shot into the protestors i assume?

9 times out of 10, i would prolly say it was justified....have any linkage too that info?

put on your television. :)

I bet Saddam's bound for some resort somewhere with all that money he stashed away. He stashed his planes in Iran so there's no doubt he's hid some more goodies for us somewhere. I saw on the News one night that Bush wants to make a case against Iran next. If he keeps this up, things could really get nasty.

Hrm....I think Bush's name accurately discribes him....oh and his plan of going into Syria, crossing the line. I think the man needs some ass personally......

I might remind all of you that historical shortsightedness is never a good thing, especially out of convenience to the like or dislike of a person or persons for political or ideological reasons.  Nor did this situation begin with Bush, although it did, thankfully, end.  Pay attention to which Congressmen are out there asking "where are the weapons of mass destruction?" right now.  If Iraq had no weapons then I ask you to read this text, including the letter to then President Bill Clinton, written in 1998 regarding Iraq.  I think you'll be surprised to find it's the same group of people who signed this letter who are now marching to a different tune simply because they don't like who's in the White House.  Think of what Saddam had to lose, think of what he lost, and if he had no weapons then what logic was there in fighting a hopeless war when he could have just told the inspectors "Look anywhere in my country you like", made a mockery out of the US intelligence agencies, and kept his position of power.  Saddam may have been evil, but he was NOT stupid.  They're there, somewhere, or perhaps the greater threat is that they exist, and now are somewhere else instead, waiting to be used by men eager to rush off to do murder with them.

No, all this is angry talk I hear now is politics, and this is why I hate politics.  There's two muched two-facedness, and party loyalty always wins out over common sense.  Were the reasons for the war political?  Perhaps, but if one is to question the reasons for the war I would also invite them to question the motives of those who are busy criticizing it when they were advocating the exact same action no more than 5 years ago.  Never forget history, and never forget the context in which things are said by people in power, especially those who have lost it and now seek to regain it.

Senator Carl Levin

Statement on Iraq

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'

At the outset, I believe it would be useful to review the events that led up to the requirement for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the time that Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied its neighbor Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq .

After Iraqi forces had been ousted from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition and active hostilities had ended, but while coalition forces were still occupying Iraqi territory, the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, conducted a review of Iraq's history with weapons of mass destruction and made a number of decisions in April 1991 to achieve its goals, including a formal cease fire.

With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations.

After reviewing Iraq's history, the Security Council decided that `Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision' of its weapons of mass destruction programs and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and conditioned the lifting of the economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq's meeting its obligations, including those relating to its weapons of mass destruction programs.

To implement those decisions, the Security Council authorized the formation of a Special Commission, which has come to be known as UNSCOM, to `carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself' and requested the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out similar responsibilities for Iraq's nuclear program. Additionally, the UN Security Council decided that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction and called for UNSCOM to conduct ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance. The detailed modalities for these actions were agreed upon by an exchange of letters in May 1991 that were signed by the UN Secretary General, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq .

Thus, Iraq unconditionally accepted the UN Security Council's demands and thereby achieved a formal cease-fire and the withdrawal of coalition forces from its territory.

Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled `UNSCOM Main Achievements': `UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'

Mr. President, I will not dwell on the numerous instances of Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations. I would note, however, that in accepting the February 23, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the UN Secretary General and Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, that ended Iraq's prior refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to perform their missions, the UN Security Council warned Iraq that it will face the `severest consequences' if it fails to adhere to the commitments it reaffirmed in the MOU. Suffice it to say that on August 5, 1998, Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activities.

In response, on September 9, 1998, a unanimous UN Security Council condemned Iraq's action and suspended its sanctions' reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise their full range of activities. Within the last week, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister refused to rescind Iraq's decision. Throughout this process and despite the unanimity in the UN Security Council, Iraq has depicted the United States and Britain as preventing UNSCOM and the IAEA from certifying Iraqi compliance with its obligations.

To review, Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied Kuwait, it's armed forces were ejected from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition forces, active hostilities ceased, and the UN Security Council demanded and Iraq accepted, as a condition of a cease-fire, that its weapons of mass destruction programs be destroyed and that such destruction be accomplished under international supervision and permanent monitoring, and that economic and weapons sanctions remain in effect until those conditions are satisfied.

Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.

Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.

Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.

Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'

I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.

The letter follows:

U.S. SENATE,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq .

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincrely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.


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

Congressional Record
October 9, 1998
United States Senate
pp. S12239-S12240

I go with daman here pho .

what gives america the right to have over a dozen nukes  and irak may not have 1 .


and now DON'T say "sadam was evil "  
because bush is 2

the only diffirence is that saddam his bad things where made public and bush his bad things aren't . if you would see in what dirty bussiness  Bush would actually be in . then you would say  wow.

Wheres the proof of that games? seriously, you all love to bash, but *NEVER*
show/offer any proof what so ever to this conspiracy or acts bush is involved in, oh my, he is evil 2, bleh, if bush starts gasing his own civilians i may believe you, or starts taking funding from kid hospitals for his own use