|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7675] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 03:00   |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
why are we considered 'war-mongers' or 'brainwashed' simply because we see the necessity for this war?
i have seen many reasons for this war and not one good reason against it.
people say it's about oil... this war makes getting oil alot harder than not going to war. it's a pain enough now dealing with arab countries over oil. it will be much worse afterwards
people say many innocents will be killed... many more innocents are killed every year while sadaam is in power
people say let the inspectors do their job... they have not been able to do the job in 12 years. even though they just got back in, they have already proven to be ineffectual. the inspectors are not supposed to find wmd, sadaam is supposed to bring them to the inspectors so they can watch them be destroyed. or he is supposed to provide proof they were destroyed already. he is not doing these things. he has shown total contempt for the un and has complied in only the least amount necessary to divide the world.
the few items that blix did find, he buried in a 173 page report rather than report them verbally to the council. this shows that blix is allowing his personal beliefs and agenda to affect the way he does his job. he knew damn well that his last verbal report to the sec council would have an enormous effect on the way members acted. he gave a rosy picture of inspections and buried the serious breaches in a 173 page report so that the outcome of the meeting would be anti-us.
people say sadaam poses us no threat... sadaam can't personally get to the us, true. but he can reach isreal, turkey, kuwait,saudi arabia, iran. 4 out of 5 of these are our allies. 1 is in nato. he can also give weapons to terrorists who can make their way to the us or europe. even if he has no direct ties to alqueda, he does have ties to other groups and they have tiesto alqueda or they can bring the bombs here themselves. if an alqueda operative goes up to sadaam and says"i can get to newyork, but i don't have any anthrax" you can bet your ass sadaam will hook him up.
so, these are the main arguments i've heard, got any others?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7679] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 03:05 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
unfortunately...me and my other computer nerd friends have worked on my computer...it's the best it's gonna get as long as I keep the same mother board...700 Mhz and I dont even have any AGP slots
For the record...I did not mean to state that I am necissarily against the war in Iraq. There are alternatives...and I'm sure we are pursuing those as well...Saddam remains a threat...and it's getting to the point where war might be the only option left.
I do not, however, agree with Bush's methods. He has threatened to nuke...he seems more like a bully than a president and he hasn't occupied himself much with the problems at home. He also lies about alot of the stuff and needs to give the American people the truth if he wants people to support this war.
I merely would like to see ALL of the alternatives to war explored and attempted before we result to that.
|
his threat to nuke was just that... a threat. what he said basically was... do not use chemical,biological, nuclear weapons, we have more of them and are not afraid to use them. this was a necessary statement because now a days, everyone and his brother is trying to develope nukes. all it takes is for one dictator to say"what'll those pussies do if i drop a bomb on their ass'
it was necessary to reenforce the fact that we have them and we won't take no shit from the winner in a n.korea weapons auction.
as for bush lying, i don't believe he is... i believe he is sometimes misinformed but i don't think he is purposley lying.
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7680] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 03:07 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
ACK is the only war-monger. He's at the point where he's debating just because I want to explore alternatives.
|
ok, thanks for clearing that up.
btw did the arrow really have to make the trip to the new forums?
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7683] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 03:09 |
 |
[sg]the0ne
Messages: 442
Registered: February 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
in your eyes. remember...opinion is not fact. I just lack motivation to fight you anymore because you have been brainwashed to follow the military unconditionally...and it's really pointless arguing that there are alternatives to war with a bunch of war mongers
|
Wow, you start off with "[...]in your eyes. remember...opinion is not fact" and flow right into a string of opinions for the *rest* of the post. Bravo, good showing ! If there was a n00b stories of arguement contructs this screen shot would be there. 
Why Iraq & not everyone else ? Because everyone else (save Yasa Arrafat(sp?)) still has diplomatic options left. Other people haven't been lying about the same thing under UN resolution for over a decade. We haven't been doing *the same* song and dance with other countries like we have Iraq & like the Israeli's have been doing with Yasa A.
How about this, why NOT Iraq ? We've gone to other countries for reasons less than Weps of Mass Dest. But somehow now, Saddam has them & we know this... When you have so many units of Chemical X Y or Z (detailed in Iraq's weapons claims documents post Desert Storm) then can't supply them or prove their desctruction, we know you have them. When we find *new* devices that could be used to deliver biological weapons, we know you have them. When the *world news* reports that defecting Iraqi troops 'say' Saddam has ordered their use under conditions X Y & Z, we know you have them. So like I questioned previously, how long does disarmament of Saddam take ? Twent four years ? Is this like a bottomless bank account of time ? Could he pass this down to his sons ? When do you say STOP, the time is now. And if you do say STOP how do you enforce it ?
The UN already said do X Y & Z and DO NOT do 1 2 or 3 or you will be in voilation which gives us the authority to come CRUSH YOUR ASS(WorldCommunity VS You). Even better *another* resolution was passed more recently that told of 'serious consequences' if he did not comply. What consequences are that ? The uncomfortable 'company' of Hanz & the goof troops ?
[UN 'weapons inspectors' have been seen on TV handling 'stuff' with no gloves or mask, sniffing 'it' and other unacceptable practices. Not to mention Hanz.'s little speach failed to mention the 'drone'.]
If the U.N. wont enforce their resolutions, the willing shall.
If anyone would care to address any of these points I'd be pleased cause I enjoy this kinda convo.
The One
yahoo : chapstic25
aim : lamant281
[Updated on: Wed, 19 March 2003 06:42] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7695] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 03:34 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
occasionally, even our inteligence people get it wrong. example is the documents saying sadaam tried to get uranium from nigeria. we got the documents and passed them on to inspectors immediatley. bush in good faith mentioned them to the public and congress it was later learned they were fakes. it happens especially in these days where everything is happening so fast.
this is a case where bush was misinformed but he did not intentionally lie. bush has built his reputation on the fact that he is not like clinton and that he tells the truth. to intentionally lie and take us down the path of clinton would be political suicide and he knows it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7722] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 07:22 |
eggmac
Messages: 51
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
I think I have presented my facts very clearly in the other topic about Saddam Hussein being a 'threat' and Saddam Hussein being the only reason for a war on Iraq. That idea is more than rediculous, and your 'facts' are solemly quotes from TV or Newspapers. It has nothing to do with the actual truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7787] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 12:45 |
KIRBY098
Messages: 1546
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
although I am confused about when Clinton ever really lied? The one time he "lied" was a time where he never should have been on trial in the first place.
he "lied" by saying he didn't have sex with Lewinsky...correct? Following the true definition of sex, which is the act of penetration, he didn't have sex with her
|
Oh, and don't forget the O.J. Simpson discussion too. Let's bring up all the off topic, impossible to prove topics that have nothing to do with this discussion, shall we? :rolleyes:
Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7890] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 16:34 |
spotelmo
Messages: 273
Registered: February 2003
Location: nebraska
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
although I am confused about when Clinton ever really lied? The one time he "lied" was a time where he never should have been on trial in the first place.
he "lied" by saying he didn't have sex with Lewinsky...correct? Following the true definition of sex, which is the act of penetration, he didn't have sex with her
|
ok, i'll clarify and slightly retract my statement. first off... the monica deal does count as a lie and the entire situation is the reason why he was impeached and should have been convicted. as for other lies, i will not go into that because many of the "lies" are more opinion by those against him. so i won't go into them as they are not all based in provable fact. but to clarify my statement about clinton lies, what i meant was that bush is being accused by liberals of being a liar(and i believe by you but too tired to find the post) what i was saying is that i don't believe bush intentionally lies about anything because he was elected based on the "moral high ground" people who were tired of the entire clinton "immoral" years in the whitehouse including allegations of whitewater, china, monica, big business bribes etc. elected bush based on bringing morals back to the whitehouse.
what i was saying was that if bush were to be perceived as no better than clinton in this respect, he would be committing political suicide and bringing the republican party down with him. that is what i meant by and was the context of my comments about clinton "lies" and bush not lying.
i hope this clears it up for you because i'm assuming that you were simply confused by my statements and were not trying to maliciously twist my words in an attempt to make me look bad in a debate.
perhaps it is the evil arrow influencing your actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Good site for those of you against mindless slaughter [message #7947] |
Wed, 19 March 2003 18:32 |
|
[sg]the0ne
Messages: 442
Registered: February 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Duke of Nukes |
Clinton did nothing worthy of being kicked out of office...and people knew that. Clinton was never in any danger. So long as he stays fit to run the office, he could not have been convicted. Was Clinton going off on every little thing threatening to bomb everyone? no...and unless he started doing stuff that showed him as an irresponsible leader, he would not have been kicked out of office
Nothing you can say can convince me that Clinton wasn't fit to run the country...notice how there was good economy while he was in office...
|
I happen to be VERY EDUCATED on this subject and spent 100's of hours researching the issues and would like to say. SHUT THE FUCK UP. You have LESS OF AN IDEA on this subject than the last. The US congress failed to do their job. Clinton had ver much satisfied the requirements for impeachment. This is a FACT not an opinion. Your last statement sounds exactly like France. "Nothing you can say can convince me that Clinton wasn't fit to run the country".
The FIRST FUCKING THING I learned in governemt was.....The current president is not directly responsible for the CURRENT economy, he rides on the wave of the previous president because MOST economic bills dont go into effect for may years. Perhaps you haven't completed this class yet.
yahoo : chapstic25
aim : lamant281
[Updated on: Wed, 19 March 2003 18:34] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
