Dude, Where's my country? [Archive] - LP Association Forums

Todd

02-10-2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--acetaminophen@Feb 9 2004, 08:02 PM
O.K. I'm not an American citizen. (Though I'm threatened by my boss, my wife and my daughter everyday.)

I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Dude, Where's my country?' now. (I mean YOUR country of course.)

What do you think of his opinions? Is Bush really that kind of 'Sun of Beach'?

The Bush administration sent your sons and daughters off to fight a war that did not need to be fought BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY REAL THREAT AT ALL?

I want to know your (real US citizens') candid thinking about Bush and War in Iraq.

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
I don't support Bush in any way, shape or form, but there was a reason to go to Iraq, and that was to capture Saddam, which needed to be done, regardless of what 'side' you're on.

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'. But I hope nothing happens over there democracy wise, because our democracy is ####ed up as it is, we don't need a USA Jr.

We need to find Osama, though. :rolleyes: That should have been done WAY before 2001. ####, they even know of Osama before September 11th. [/b][/quote]
The Iraqi war was not needed. It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy. If the Iraqi people want Saddam out, then they can fight their own war. If they can't for whatever reason, too bad, but it's not worth the lives of our men and women and the costs to us. 87 billion dollars is being spent in Iraq, plus more to come I'm sure, yet in the meantime, the unemployment rate over here is the highest it's ever been and too many people are homeless or living in shelters.

Anyways, I haven't read that book. But in school today we watched Bowling for Columbine (we're finishing it up Wednesday) and it's a very interesting movie. It's very shocking to see morons saying it's the American duty to own stockpiles of guns. The fact that you can get a free gun for opening a bank account is insane, and the footage from the Columbine security cameras is just devistating to watch. Dude, Where's my Country sounds like a good book, I might have to read it (yes, I will actually read something on my own!....maybe)

J-Flex

02-10-2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Todd+Feb 10 2004, 04:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Feb 10 2004, 04:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--acetaminophen@Feb 9 2004, 08:02 PM
O.K. I'm not an American citizen. (Though I'm threatened by my boss, my wife and my daughter everyday.)

I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Dude, Where's my country?' now. (I mean YOUR country of course.)

What do you think of his opinions? Is Bush really that kind of 'Sun of Beach'?

The Bush administration sent your sons and daughters off to fight a war that did not need to be fought BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY REAL THREAT AT ALL?

I want to know your (real US citizens') candid thinking about Bush and War in Iraq.

:whistle:* :whistle:* :whistle:
I don't support Bush in any way, shape or form, but there was a reason to go to Iraq, and that was to capture Saddam, which needed to be done, regardless of what 'side' you're on.

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'. But I hope nothing happens over there democracy wise, because our democracy is ####ed up as it is, we don't need a USA Jr.

We need to find Osama, though. :rolleyes: That should have been done WAY before 2001. ####, they even know of Osama before September 11th.
The Iraqi war was not needed. It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy. If the Iraqi people want Saddam out, then they can fight their own war. If they can't for whatever reason, too bad, but it's not worth the lives of our men and women and the costs to us. 87 billion dollars is being spent in Iraq, plus more to come I'm sure, yet in the meantime, the unemployment rate over here is the highest it's ever been and too many people are homeless or living in shelters.

Anyways, I haven't read that book. But in school today we watched Bowling for Columbine (we're finishing it up Wednesday) and it's a very interesting movie. It's very shocking to see morons saying it's the American duty to own stockpiles of guns. The fact that you can get a free gun for opening a bank account is insane, and the footage from the Columbine security cameras is just devistating to watch. Dude, Where's my Country sounds like a good book, I might have to read it (yes, I will actually read something on my own!....maybe) [/b][/quote]
we have been trying to fight him for like 20 years....
if he was killed his son would have come...
he had everything in control...if i was still there then "i had to join his army and fight the US and UK Terrorists ".....otherwise my family would have been killed including me.....
i know US has not to babysit the world.... but now they are already there...you should look forward..... do you think if they leave now everything will be alright?....dont think so...

Todd

02-10-2004, 12:17 PM

No, if the US didn't leave, nothing would be alright there, but should that be our concern, especially considering that the government here has a deficit of 500 Billion dollars? No.

And apparantley a lot of Iraqi's don't even appreciate our help. Today, yet another car bomb went off in an attempt to kill US soilders.

Chris(tmas)

02-10-2004, 12:37 PM

Just because that stupid monkey Bush couldnt find Osama, Bush went over to Saddam. He didnt do anything at that moment. Everyone has nuclear weapons and stuff. But he wanted to capture Saddam and let the other countrys say: Ooohhh... Bush is good!. Which is not.

If Holland has a war, we dont need USA or some weird country from Africa, we can do it our own. If not, well, we still dont want them :P

hope this post made any sense :wth:

J-Flex

02-10-2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Todd@Feb 10 2004, 01:17 PM
No, if the US didn't leave, nothing would be alright there, but should that be our concern, especially considering that the government here has a deficit of 500 Billion dollars? No.

And apparantley a lot of Iraqi's don't even appreciate our help. Today, yet another car bomb went off in an attempt to kill US soilders.
it doesnt concern you now
And thats what US also didnt before 9/11....

Those who dont appreciate it are the brainwashed Sadddam followers...
do you think a normal iraqi civilian would explosed him self? come on man...its all the foundalism brainwashed and al-queda member who are doing this dude.

J-Flex

02-10-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Chris@Feb 10 2004, 01:37 PM
Just because that stupid monkey Bush couldnt find Osama, Bush went over to Saddam. He didnt do anything at that moment. Everyone has nuclear weapons and stuff. But he wanted to capture Saddam and let the other countrys say: Ooohhh... Bush is good!. Which is not.

If Holland has a war, we dont need USA or some weird country from Africa, we can do it our own. If not, well, we still dont want them :P

hope this post made any sense :wth:
no i dont think he attacked Saddam because he didnt find Osama
i think he did use the strategy to use iraq for a base to attack Iran and from then to North Korea..... i know it sounds Like C&C but you can look it for your self in the atlas Iran would be easier to catch when you attack from 2 sides Afghanistan and Iraq....

Ander

02-10-2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Todd@Feb 10 2004, 05:17 AM
500 Billion dollars
Does that amount of money even exist? Where does the government come up with these bullsh*t numbers? How exactly can you spend 500 Billion dollars, much less expect to get it all back? Sounds like a bad Las Vegas casino movie.

ass_kicker

02-10-2004, 03:25 PM

hmm i think bush sucks. i just dont think he played it correctly, if you get my point...
...which you probably aint. but thats ok.
but im glad theres no saddam anymore.

Mark

02-10-2004, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by J-Flex+Feb 10 2004, 11:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J-Flex @ Feb 10 2004, 11:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Feb 10 2004, 01:17 PM
No, if the US didn't leave, nothing would be alright there, but should that be our concern, especially considering that the government here has a deficit of 500 Billion dollars? No.

And apparantley a lot of Iraqi's don't even appreciate our help. Today, yet another car bomb went off in an attempt to kill US soilders.
it doesnt concern you now
And thats what US also didnt before 9/11....

Those who dont appreciate it are the brainwashed Sadddam followers...
do you think a normal iraqi civilian would explosed him self? come on man...its all the foundalism brainwashed and al-queda member who are doing this dude. [/b][/quote]
Don't double post.

And yes, it does concern him. He's an American citizen. He could be the one getting laid off next week, then have a very tough time getting a new job, falling into poverty.

The rest of your post doens't make sense so I won't try to decipher that.

Shade

02-10-2004, 06:19 PM

My opinions can be found in the politics post. They're too long to retype here but to summarize my summarization :P :

Yes, Bush is that much of an ass.

Phantom Duck

02-10-2004, 06:32 PM

I mainly agree with Todd, who's one of the few USA citizens who don't have that dumb (although biased by Oil companies) Bush type of thinking.

And to those who keep saying that Saddam and Osama should be killed: was it OK when George's dad trained Osama via CIA and when your taxes went to funding Hussein?

No offence, i just find those who rule (or ruled, or that will rule) USA too hypocriting.

TeMpEsT

02-10-2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by P#@nt0m Du(k@Feb 10 2004, 07:32 PM
No offence, i just find those who rule (or ruled, or that will rule) USA too hypocriting.
None taken. I'm a U.S. citizen, and I agree 100% with you. I STILL don't see how Bush won the 2000 election, but he will not win the 2004. John Kerry is really going to throw him out.

Sunday morning on "Meet the Press," Bush tried to cover up all his policy questions by disagreeing with the host, never agreeing with one statement he made. That, is bad on his regime.

If Saddam had ANY WOMD, we supplied him the weapons in the 80's when the Iraq-Iran war was stirring. Now Bush is trying to cover up the intelligence officer/mole and say that they lacked the information needed.

Will

02-10-2004, 08:39 PM

Bush shouldn't have won the 2000 election. Al Gore was winning the electoral race, and then Flordia, the state that "coincidentally" is governed by Bush's brother, decided to "mess up" and have a "recount."

arT saveS

02-10-2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--acetaminophen@Feb 9 2004, 08:02 PM
O.K. I'm not an American citizen. (Though I'm threatened by my boss, my wife and my daughter everyday.)

I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Dude, Where's my country?' now. (I mean YOUR country of course.)

What do you think of his opinions? Is Bush really that kind of 'Sun of Beach'?

The Bush administration sent your sons and daughters off to fight a war that did not need to be fought BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY REAL THREAT AT ALL?

I want to know your (real US citizens') candid thinking about Bush and War in Iraq.

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
I don't support Bush in any way, shape or form, but there was a reason to go to Iraq, and that was to capture Saddam, which needed to be done, regardless of what 'side' you're on.

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'. But I hope nothing happens over there democracy wise, because our democracy is ####ed up as it is, we don't need a USA Jr.

We need to find Osama, though. :rolleyes: That should have been done WAY before 2001. ####, they even know of Osama before September 11th. [/b][/quote]
I agree with Casey...too a point.

Sadam needed to be captured, because whether he was gonna use the weapons against us or not, he's dangerous. But Bush had no evidence of him going to use any weapon, chemical, nuclear, whatever they are called, and he still, after what? 2 years? has found no trace of "weapons of mass destruction".

The Iraqi people did need liberated, and I'm glad we did that. But it really is none of our business. We lost many women and men for no reason at all.

We should let Sadam out of his cage so he can attack Bush. And then shoot Sadam...

Also, Sadam wouldn't have those weapons if...who was it...oh yeah, USA gave them away!! I'm a US citizen, and I love America. But sometimes we're really dumb..

Anthony.

02-10-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by In.My.Skin+Feb 10 2004, 05:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (In.My.Skin @ Feb 10 2004, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 9 2004, 08:36 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--acetaminophen@Feb 9 2004, 08:02 PM
O.K. I'm not an American citizen. (Though I'm threatened by my boss, my wife and my daughter everyday.)

I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Dude, Where's my country?' now. (I mean YOUR country of course.)

What do you think of his opinions? Is Bush really that kind of 'Sun of Beach'?

The Bush administration sent your sons and daughters off to fight a war that did not need to be fought BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY REAL THREAT AT ALL?

I want to know your (real US citizens') candid thinking about Bush and War in Iraq.

:whistle:* :whistle:* :whistle:
I don't support Bush in any way, shape or form, but there was a reason to go to Iraq, and that was to capture Saddam, which needed to be done, regardless of what 'side' you're on.

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'. But I hope nothing happens over there democracy wise, because our democracy is ####ed up as it is, we don't need a USA Jr.

We need to find Osama, though. :rolleyes: That should have been done WAY before 2001. ####, they even know of Osama before September 11th.
I agree with Casey...too a point.

Sadam needed to be captured, because whether he was gonna use the weapons against us or not, he's dangerous. But Bush had no evidence of him going to use any weapon, chemical, nuclear, whatever they are called, and he still, after what? 2 years? has found no trace of "weapons of mass destruction".

The Iraqi people did need liberated, and I'm glad we did that. But it really is none of our business. We lost many women and men for no reason at all.

We should let Sadam out of his cage so he can attack Bush. And then shoot Sadam...

Also, Sadam wouldn't have those weapons if...who was it...oh yeah, USA gave them away!! I'm a US citizen, and I love America. But sometimes we're really dumb.. [/b][/quote]
They had a reason for it in first place : Iran took U.S. hostages in 1980 (or around this year), so the Iran-Iraq war was a good way for the U.S. to take their revenge... If we can call this a reason :lol: .

Same thing for Afghanistan, they gave them weapons to drive away the Soviets, but they turned their back on the U.S.

Omar A

02-10-2004, 10:44 PM

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'.

No one needed to be liberated. Saddam wasn't doing nothing wrong. Most of the violence that happened in Iraq when Saddam was in power was caused by his son Oday. Saddam jailed him so many times, he even tried to kill him around 1996 but it only left him paralyzed.

i know US has not to babysit the world.... but now they are already there...you should look forward..... do you think if they leave now everything will be alright?....dont think so...

Thats the stupidest excuse ever. So say now I kill your family, would you forgive me if I tell you that its already done and that we should look at what is infront of us? I don't think so

Those who dont appreciate it are the brainwashed Sadddam followers...

Ah I don't think anyone would be happy if someone invaded their country. I'm originally from Iraq but I'm also Canadian, and if someone invaded Canada and I'm here. Holy #### I'd be pissed even if the government is bad.

do you think a normal iraqi civilian would explosed him self?

After your home is destroyed and your family's dead. Than you would do anything to revenge.

i think he did use the strategy to use iraq for a base to attack Iran and from then to North Korea

and is invading Iran and North Korea something we should support? Can't you understand that thousands of innocent of people die?

Sadam needed to be captured, because whether he was gonna use the weapons against us or not, he's dangerous.

How the hell is he dangerous? He was hiding in a god damn hole, that shows you how harmless he is.

The Iraqi people did need liberated

Tha majority of the iraqis prefer Saddam over the American occupation because now they don't have electricity only for like 2 hours a day, no jobs, no privacy (Americans broke into my aunts house and they stripped her down saying that she may be a suicide bomber).

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

the main reason why Bush invaded Iraq was for the oil, or he wouldn't have spend billions of dollars if they weren't gonna get anything from it. Bush and his administraion doesn't give a crap about people suffering, if they did than he should've went and helped millions of people that are dying of aids in Africa.

Ander

02-10-2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Omar A@Feb 10 2004, 03:44 PM

Sadam needed to be captured, because whether he was gonna use the weapons against us or not, he's dangerous.
How the hell is he dangerous? He was hiding in a god damn hole, that shows you how harmless he is.

No, that show's he's a coward. A p*ssy. You dont see Osama Bin Laden flying a plane into a building himself, he hires some radicals to do it for him.

Omar A

02-10-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by superxero88+Feb 11 2004, 12:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (superxero88 @ Feb 11 2004, 12:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Omar A@Feb 10 2004, 03:44 PM

Sadam needed to be captured, because whether he was gonna use the weapons against us or not, he's dangerous.
How the hell is he dangerous? He was hiding in a god damn hole, that shows you how harmless he is.

No, that show's he's a coward. A p*ssy. You dont see Osama Bin Laden flying a plane into a building himself, he hires some radicals to do it for him. [/b][/quote]
Osama is another story.

Well I heard rumors that Saddam was not caught in the hole but somewhere else and than they planned that whole thing just to humilate him

Give me five minutes and I'm gonna make a thread of some pictures that you'll be very interested in seeing ;)

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Todd@Feb 9 2004, 10:53 PM
It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy.
You know that the US is the biggest and THE most powerful country in the entire world, right?

It IS our job to help out other countries in need of help. Wether all of you say so or not, Saddam was a huge threat to us, as is any other Communist/Dictator ruled country.

Don't think they wouldn't give it all up just to attempt to send one nuke over our way. They'd gladly give all of their first born just to see us in pain.

EDIT: Furthermore, who the #### would have saved the Iraqis from Saddam if it wasn't for the US, huh? The Iraqis couldn't have saved themselves. They've been trying to do that for years.

They would have been enslaved until Saddam died, and then another Dictator would rise to power and enslave them until he dies, etc. etc.

Omar A

02-10-2004, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 11 2004, 12:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 11 2004, 12:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Feb 9 2004, 10:53 PM
It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy.
You know that the US is the biggest and THE most powerful country in the entire world, right?

It IS our job to help out other countries in need of help. Wether all of you say so or not, Saddam was a huge threat to us, as is any other Communist/Dictator ruled country.

Don't think they wouldn't give it all up just to attempt to send one nuke over our way. They'd gladly give all of their first born just to see us in pain. [/b][/quote]
What Nukes???? Saddam didn't even have Nukes. Americas government is a threat to the world for all the Nukes they have. America should go and help people who are really in need. They could've atleast donated 1 billion for cancer research instead of a pointless war

Furthermore, who the #### would have saved the Iraqis from Saddam if it wasn't for the US, huh? The Iraqis couldn't have saved themselves. They've been trying to do that for years.

They would have been enslaved until Saddam died, and then another Dictator would rise to power and enslave them until he dies, etc. etc.

The Iraqis didn't need to be saved. Atleast Saddam didn't cut off their power and left them without jobs for months.

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Omar A+Feb 10 2004, 06:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omar A @ Feb 10 2004, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 11 2004, 12:21 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Feb 9 2004, 10:53 PM
It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy.
You know that the US is the biggest and THE most powerful country in the entire world, right?

It IS our job to help out other countries in need of help. Wether all of you say so or not, Saddam was a huge threat to us, as is any other Communist/Dictator ruled country.

Don't think they wouldn't give it all up just to attempt to send one nuke over our way. They'd gladly give all of their first born just to see us in pain.
What Nukes???? Saddam didn't even have Nukes. Americas government is a threat to the world for all the Nukes they have. America should go and help people who are really in need. They could've atleast donated 1 billion for cancer research instead of a pointless war [/b][/quote]
Okay, I'm with you on the fact that the war wasn't that really important and that it was most likely for oil..

..but saying Saddam wasn't doing anything wrong? The ####? I hate America just as much as any Iraq citizen, but I still see that Saddam was a mad man with a power-trip.

IMO, Saddam needed to be put out of power. After all, he did commit genocide. Maybe not as bad as other's before him, like Hitler, but he still did terrible things to his own people.

I don't know, I don't think we'll ever agree on anything. All I know is that:

1) Saddam needed to be put out of power
2) Bush is a ####### moron
3) I rather live in Europe

Ander

02-10-2004, 11:30 PM

What is this about the cutting of the power/electricity? Do you mean the east coast black out, that lasted for like, a day.

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by superxero88@Feb 10 2004, 06:30 PM
What is this about the cutting of the power/electricity? Do you mean the east coast black out, that lasted for like, a day.
Try the Americans bombing Iraq and cutting off their power.

Or something to that effect.

Glenn

02-10-2004, 11:34 PM

Bush is version 2.0, however no bugs were fixed ^_^

I don't like Bush at all: Against gays, started an unneeded war, and killed our school budget.

Alacrity

02-10-2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by DuffsterLP@Feb 10 2004, 07:34 PM
Bush is version 2.0, however no bugs were fixed ^_^

I don't like Bush at all: Against gays, started an unneeded war, and killed our school budget.
I don't think hes exactly against gays. He just has a certain boundary to how far they can have a relationship.

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Alacrity622+Feb 10 2004, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alacrity622 @ Feb 10 2004, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DuffsterLP@Feb 10 2004, 07:34 PM
Bush is version 2.0, however no bugs were fixed ^_^

I don't like Bush at all: Against gays, started an unneeded war, and killed our school budget.
I don't think hes exactly against gays. He just has a certain boundary to how far they can have a relationship. [/b][/quote]
and tell me that isn't wrong.

The Constitution says all men are created equal. So because they're gay, they don't get what a common man gets?

O...K..

Ander

02-10-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 10 2004, 04:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 10 2004, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Alacrity622@Feb 10 2004, 06:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--DuffsterLP@Feb 10 2004, 07:34 PM
Bush is version 2.0, however no bugs were fixed* ^_^

I don't like Bush at all: Against gays, started an unneeded war, and killed our school budget.
I don't think hes exactly against gays. He just has a certain boundary to how far they can have a relationship.
and tell me that isn't wrong.

The Constitution says all men are created equal. So because they're gay, they don't get what a common man gets?

O...K.. [/b][/quote]
The common man dates and marries a female.

edit: not like that carries any significance, the constitution is pretty bullshit. Equality < Freedom. Can't have both.

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:43 PM

So the gay man is excluded from the basic rights of everyone, simply because of his lifestyle?

America has gone to hell.

Alacrity

02-10-2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 10 2004, 07:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 10 2004, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Alacrity622@Feb 10 2004, 06:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--DuffsterLP@Feb 10 2004, 07:34 PM
Bush is version 2.0, however no bugs were fixed* ^_^

I don't like Bush at all: Against gays, started an unneeded war, and killed our school budget.
I don't think hes exactly against gays. He just has a certain boundary to how far they can have a relationship.
and tell me that isn't wrong.

The Constitution says all men are created equal. So because they're gay, they don't get what a common man gets?

O...K.. [/b][/quote]
The bottom fact is: Men will never be equal. Men and women will never be equal, children and adults will never be equal. You just have to choose what's different.

Will

02-10-2004, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 10 2004, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 10 2004, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Feb 9 2004, 10:53 PM
It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy.
You know that the US is the biggest and THE most powerful country in the entire world, right?

It IS our job to help out other countries in need of help. Wether all of you say so or not, Saddam was a huge threat to us, as is any other Communist/Dictator ruled country. [/b][/quote]
Exactly.

America, from the day it was born, made the committment of being the police for the world. That's what America was founded on.

F-ck Casey

02-10-2004, 11:45 PM

well we live in a place that promotes freedom of choice and everything else.

it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Alacrity

02-10-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Casey@Feb 10 2004, 07:45 PM
well we live in a place that promotes freedom of choice and everything else.

it shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Why is it bad that we have a country where people can express their own beliefs freely?

Will

02-11-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Alacrity622+Feb 10 2004, 07:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alacrity622 @ Feb 10 2004, 07:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 10 2004, 07:45 PM
well we live in a place that promotes freedom of choice and everything else.

it shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Why is it bad that we have a country where people can express their own beliefs freely? [/b][/quote]
Because even if those people express their own beleifs, they are shunned by prejudice.

Case in point: Bush against gay marriage.

Alacrity

02-11-2004, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Will+Feb 10 2004, 08:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Feb 10 2004, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Alacrity622@Feb 10 2004, 07:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Feb 10 2004, 07:45 PM
well we live in a place that promotes freedom of choice and everything else.

it shouldn't be that way, but it is.
Why is it bad that we have a country where people can express their own beliefs freely?
Because even if those people express their own beleifs, they are shunned by prejudice.

Case in point: Bush against gay marriage. [/b][/quote]
Its not only Bush though. There are alot of people against gay marriage.

Kæton

02-11-2004, 12:16 AM

I still don't get what's wrong with homosexuals... They're just like everyone else, but they're attracted to their own gender... So what?

I don't get it :mellow:.

Will

02-11-2004, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by Alacrity622@Feb 10 2004, 08:09 PM
Its not only Bush though. There are alot of people against gay marriage.
But Bush is the President. ;)

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Keaton@Feb 10 2004, 07:16 PM
I still don't get what's wrong with homosexuals... They're just like everyone else, but they're attracted to their own gender... So what?

I don't get it :mellow:.
most of America are christians, and America was brought up on Jadeo Christian values, and it's a sin or whatever in the Christian religion to be a homosexual.

Well, that's why they judge gays like they do in MY mind, atleast.

Will

02-11-2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Casey+Feb 10 2004, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Casey @ Feb 10 2004, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Keaton@Feb 10 2004, 07:16 PM
I still don't get what's wrong with homosexuals... They're just like everyone else, but they're attracted to their own gender... So what?

I don't get it :mellow:.
most of America are christians, and America was brought up on Jadeo Christian values, and it's a sin or whatever in the Christian religion to be a homosexual.

Well, that's why they judge gays like they do in MY mind, atleast. [/b][/quote]
That's exactly why I'm Atheist.

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Will+Feb 10 2004, 07:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Feb 10 2004, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 10 2004, 08:19 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Keaton@Feb 10 2004, 07:16 PM
I still don't get what's wrong with homosexuals... They're just like everyone else, but they're attracted to their own gender... So what?

I don't get it :mellow:.
most of America are christians, and America was brought up on Jadeo Christian values, and it's a sin or whatever in the Christian religion to be a homosexual.

Well, that's why they judge gays like they do in MY mind, atleast.
That's exactly why I'm Atheist. [/b][/quote]
I'm a Satanist. In my 15 years, I've learned that it's better to believe that one makes their own life path, and it's not all set in stone what you'll do in life, and to believe that you are your own god.

well, it made sense when it popped in my head.

Kæton

02-11-2004, 12:28 AM

Well, I understand that America was brought up in Christian eyes, but still, I thought religion wasn't supposed to come into government? Isn't passing laws government-like? I'm not good with politics, but I don't think people would/should be restricted just because they're one way... I guess I just must have missed something :unsure:.

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by Keaton@Feb 10 2004, 07:28 PM
Well, I understand that America was brought up in Christian eyes, but still, I thought religion wasn't supposed to come into government? Isn't passing laws government-like? I'm not good with politics, but I don't think people would/should be restricted just because they're one way... I guess I just must have missed something :unsure:.
despite what the laws say, religion will always influence someone's decisions.

They don't have to admit it, but in the back of the congress mans mind, he's thinking about what HE thinks is right, and what he thinks is right was made by his religion.

In Conclusion: Religion influences the morals and ethics that we all use through-out our lives. Even in government.

Omar A

02-11-2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Will+Feb 11 2004, 12:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Feb 11 2004, 12:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Casey@Feb 10 2004, 07:21 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Todd@Feb 9 2004, 10:53 PM
It's not our job to babysit the world, we're not the rest of the world's mommy and daddy.
You know that the US is the biggest and THE most powerful country in the entire world, right?

It IS our job to help out other countries in need of help. Wether all of you say so or not, Saddam was a huge threat to us, as is any other Communist/Dictator ruled country.
Exactly.

America, from the day it was born, made the committment of being the police for the world. That's what America was founded on. [/b][/quote]
Theres someting called the UN :rolleyes: . They should take care of the world.

Will

02-11-2004, 12:42 AM

So if the UN sent soldiers in instead of the US, it would be okay?

Omar A

02-11-2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 11 2004, 01:42 AM
So if the UN sent soldiers in instead of the US, it would be okay?
I'd say yes, but you see that wouldn't happen because the UN doesn't believe in killing thousands of innocent people for just one person.

Mark

02-11-2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 10 2004, 10:12 PM
So if the UN sent soldiers in instead of the US, it would be okay?
The UN is an organization of many countries which aim to maintain world peace. That is their job. They are the babysitters of the world, not specifically the US. And I'm sure the UN would've went based on real facts and proof rather than rushing into a war.

Will

02-11-2004, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Mark+Feb 10 2004, 08:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Feb 10 2004, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 10 2004, 10:12 PM
So if the UN sent soldiers in instead of the US, it would be okay?
The UN is an organization of many countries which aim to maintain world peace. That is their job. They are the babysitters of the world, not specifically the US. [/b][/quote]
But that still wouldn't make much sense if you think about it.

So instead of one country being pissed that one country invaded them and killed thousands of people, they'd be pissed at more than one country.

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 12:46 AM

heh, I forgot about the UN. :lol:

shows you how much importance the UN has on the everyday US citizen.

Mark

02-11-2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Will+Feb 10 2004, 10:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Feb 10 2004, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Mark@Feb 10 2004, 08:44 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 10 2004, 10:12 PM
So if the UN sent soldiers in instead of the US, it would be okay?
The UN is an organization of many countries which aim to maintain world peace. That is their job. They are the babysitters of the world, not specifically the US.
But that still wouldn't make much sense if you think about it.

So instead of one country being pissed that one country invaded them and killed thousands of people, they'd be pissed at more than one country. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, but they wouldn't know who to be mad at first. And they can't attack everyone at once. :lol:. Besides, they're more likely to co-operate (although virtually impossible with Iraq and Saddam) with the UN rather than the US. Why make yourself a target (US, UK) when you can make a big team, invade a country, and make yourself less of a target? Heh.

Omar A

02-11-2004, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 11 2004, 01:45 AM
So instead of one country being pissed that one country invaded them and killed thousands of people, they'd be pissed at more than one country.
If that would happen, it would be a democratic decision which means that the maturity wanted to go to war which is fair. But when there are millions of people protesting in the streets against Bush going to war, you can see its wrong to go to war.

[EDIT] Saddam had a meeting with some reporter from CBC before the war and said that he's willing to have a meeting with Bush and the UN to discuss whats going on but the white house rejected the offer because they thought he was being sarcastic (what a bullshit reason). If you want to see the interview, just ask and I'll put up the link.

Will

02-11-2004, 12:54 AM

But the UN gave the US permission to go into Iraq.

Whether or not they gave the US permission to destroy people's lives is still to be figured out.

I don't keep up on political situations or things like that.

Politics are for suckers.

Omar A

02-11-2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 11 2004, 01:54 AM
But the UN gave the US permission to go into Iraq.

Whether or not they gave the US permission to destroy people's lives is still to be figured out.

I don't keep up on political situations or things like that.

Politics are for suckers.
Nope, The UN didn't allow Bush to go to war but he decided to invade Iraq anyway. I'll try to find a source to prove myself.

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Omar A+Feb 10 2004, 07:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omar A @ Feb 10 2004, 07:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 11 2004, 01:54 AM
But the UN gave the US permission to go into Iraq.

Whether or not they gave the US permission to destroy people's lives is still to be figured out.

I don't keep up on political situations or things like that.

Politics are for suckers.
Nope, The UN didn't allow Bush to go to war but he decided to invade Iraq anyway. I'll try to find a source to prove myself. [/b][/quote]
it was on the National News, I don't think you have to do that. ;)

Will

02-11-2004, 01:05 AM

That's why I hate the news.

One day they say one thing, and the next day they say something else.

That's why I'm bad in debates like these.

Anyway, I'm going to stop debating, just because I'm making myself look like a fool and I have no idea what I'm talking about half the time.

Ander

02-11-2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Omar A@Feb 10 2004, 05:52 PM
[EDIT] Saddam had a meeting with some reporter from CBC before the war and said that he's willing to have a meeting with Bush and the UN to discuss whats going on but the white house rejected the offer because they thought he was being sarcastic (what a bullshit reason). If you want to see the interview, just ask and I'll put up the link.
Alot of people dislike Bush, but I think the fact that you're defending Hussein to show your dislike for Bush is sad.

Anthony.

02-11-2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 10 2004, 09:05 PM
That's why I hate the news.

One day they say one thing, and the next day they say something else.

That's why I'm bad in debates like these.

Anyway, I'm going to stop debating, just because I'm making myself look like a fool and I have no idea what I'm talking about half the time.
The U.N. can't approve or not, but the security council yes. 8 countries have their right to veto, and Russia, France, Germany threatened to veto. That's why war in Iraq isn't U.N. backed.

F-ck Casey

02-11-2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by superxero88+Feb 10 2004, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (superxero88 @ Feb 10 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Omar A@Feb 10 2004, 05:52 PM
[EDIT] Saddam had a meeting with some reporter from CBC before the war and said that he's willing to have a meeting with Bush and the UN to discuss whats going on but the white house rejected the offer because they thought he was being sarcastic (what a bullshit reason). If you want to see the interview, just ask and I'll put up the link.
Alot of people dislike Bush, but I think the fact that you're defending Hussein to show your dislike for Bush is sad. [/b][/quote]
you know he's from Iraq right?

(sorry if you're not Omar, I was under the impression that you are)

Omar A

02-11-2004, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Casey@Feb 11 2004, 02:11 AM
(sorry if you're not Omar, I was under the impression that you are)
I am from Iraq, but I've lived all my life in Canada.

And superxero81, I'm not defending Saddam. I'm just saying that Saddam wanted to negotiate, than why go to war? He would've probably stepped down from being a president, who knows.

J-Flex

02-11-2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Omar A@Feb 10 2004, 11:44 PM

And not to mention the Iraqi people needed to be 'liberated'.

No one needed to be liberated. Saddam wasn't doing nothing wrong.Most of the violence that happened in Iraq when Saddam was in power was caused by his son Oday. Saddam jailed him so many times, he even tried to kill him around 1996 but it only left him paralyzed.

sorry to say it but that was the biggest crap i have ever heared in my life ,....
you say like "no i didnt kill people it was my hand . i didnt do anything wrong"
you are maybe orginally from iraq but your words doesnt seem to sound like you have even ever lived there,...i am born 1981 and i have been through Iran and Gulfwar.
man you really need to read some faqs about iraq before talking about this...

http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/...dam_crimes.html (http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/Saddam_Crimes/saddam_crimes.html)
"RTFS and dont forget to read the links"

Dude your hate and revange feeling causes all these troubles in the world...
look at palestina and israel ..... look how long are they fighting because of hate.... you will see by your self how the hate will end them up....

Phantom Duck

02-11-2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by J-Flex@Feb 11 2004, 05:41 AM
sorry to say it but that was the biggest crap i have ever heared in my life ,....
you say like "no i didnt kill people it was my hand . i didnt do anything wrong"
you are maybe orginally from iraq but your words doesnt seem to sound like you have even ever lived there,...i am born 1981 and i have been through Iran and Gulfwar.
man you really need to read some faqs about iraq before talking about this...

http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/...dam_crimes.html (http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/Saddam_Crimes/saddam_crimes.html)
"RTFS and dont forget to read the links"

Dude your hate and revange feeling causes all these troubles in the world...
look at palestina and israel ..... look how long are they fighting because of hate.... you will see by your self how the hate will end them up....
Yes, that hate will end up inthe usual liberators (a.k.a. U.S.A. or, commonly mention to as "Heroes for oil") interfering and making everything worse, until Bush decides to throw a nuke for fun and make everyone shut up because of their fear.

No on needs a liberator, get this well in your head. Us Greeks were enslaved by Turks for 400 years. Did we ask the Europeans' help? No, we got free with our own blood, and the new nation was doing just fine until that age's top-countries (England, France, Russia) decided to "help up", whereas they were helping the Turks for 4 centuries.

Plus, that's why the UN was founded after WW II, it's not meant to be ignored by Americans ;)

Shade

02-11-2004, 03:27 PM

Plus, that's why the UN was founded after WW II, it's not meant to be ignored by Americans

Nah we 'good' Americans are simply above such things as 'democracy' and 'diplomacy' as the UN advocates.

Phantom Duck

02-11-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Shade@Feb 11 2004, 04:27 PM

Plus, that's why the UN was founded after WW II, it's not meant to be ignored by Americans

Nah we 'good' Americans are simply above such things as 'democracy' and 'diplomacy' as the UN advocates.
Good thing there are still thinking Americans like you ;)

Derek The Infamous

02-11-2004, 06:44 PM

withnoapologies

02-11-2004, 08:13 PM

I'm not in my usual extremely political mood right now so i will keep this brief. "Dude, Where's My Country" was not as good as Michael Moore's previous book "Stupid White Men".... but mind you, it is amazing.

EDITOK, i just got in the political mood. to THE DEREK :rolleyes: in the '70s or '80s (cant remeber which one) Russia asked USA and all other countries to destroy all Weapons of Mass Destruction. They, obviously, refused. I am surprised that a Nuclear war has not occured already. I also believe that 9/11 was just a one time thing, and that all the security was only for the purposes of fear. ["Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate... leads to suffering"-Yoda, STAR WARS, EPISODE 1] the security was so that Bush could follow daddy, to war in iraq. wait, i should have called it Operation Iraqi Liberation (also known as O.I.L.)

also, USA ensuring that weapons of mass destruction dont get in the hands of terrorists is pretty pointless, have you ever heard of The School of Americas (SOA)???well, the SOA was renamed to something about justice and liberty, but that is beside the point. i lost the mood to continue typing, so i am done.

Omar A

02-11-2004, 08:54 PM

The world would not be where it is right now, if it wasn't for America stepping in and protecting other countries to prevent war. Many uninformed people look down on America but thanks to us, the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years. If we didn't step in to help other countries, the world would have faced its armageddon a long time ago.

The world would not be where it is right now, if it wasn't for America stepping in and protecting other countries to prevent war? If America wants peace than it shouldn't go to war. Canada is the only country that are trying to achieve peace. Canada sold all of their navy to America and most of its weapons. If America wanted peace than thats what it should do.

Many places around the world are making weapons that are now more than twice as powerful as the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Yes we had failed intelligence on the WMDs in Iraq, but if it wasn't for America taking precautions to ensure weapons dont end up in the hands of terrorists, we might have had World War 3 by now. I am aware that we gave funding to terrorists in the past, but now we are aware of the mistakes we have made, and we are sure to never make the same mistake in our nations future.

America has like the most Nukes and chemical weapons in the world so why should they tell other countries what to do? If a drunk comes to you right now and tells you that if you don't stop drinking than he'll kill your family, would you listen or would you fight? Same thing is happening right now with Iraq.

Yes our economy is in the sh*thole, but consider this. We have not had a terrorist attack on our country since 9/11. We have been threatened more than 5 times, but never once came close to an attack. We have to be doing something right with our "War Against Terrorism" or otherwise, we would have had an attack by now that would dwarf 9/11 in proportion. It may have cost countless lives of soldiers, but the more I consider this War Against Terrorism, the more I start to see exactly how good of an idea it was for America and other countries around the world.

Could you please define what terrorism is please? Its when a person or a group of people use violence against people and property. Isn't that what America did to Iraq and Afganistan? Just wait in like 10 years and another terrorist attack will happen because all of the young victims will grow up and revenge for what happened.

If it wasn't for America, I strongly feel the world would have come to an end due to nuclear war already. And as for Saddam? He was as much of a threat to us as anyone because of his ties to terrorism. We may have not found WMDs this time around, but it was more than clear he had them only a decade earlier. Bombs in which he could've used against the united states.

Its clear that he had WMD 10 years ago because America gave it to him. Thats why Bush was so certain that he'll find them there. ;)

Ander

02-11-2004, 08:59 PM

Just wait in like 10 years and another terrorist attack will happen because all of the young victims will grow up and revenge for what happened.
Main reason that the people there are ####ed up. The children are brainwashed by their radical parents into fighting a war they have no business in. You saw the kids celebrating the attack on the Pentagon and the Trade Center. Basking the death of others. Pitiful.

Omar A

02-11-2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by superxero88@Feb 11 2004, 09:59 PM

Just wait in like 10 years and another terrorist attack will happen because all of the young victims will grow up and revenge for what happened.
Main reason that the people there are ####ed up. The children are brainwashed by their radical parents into fighting a war they have no business in. You saw the kids celebrating the attack on the Pentagon and the Trade Center. Basking the death of others. Pitiful.
That video was from 1990's when they were celebrating Eid ;)

Its all propaganda

Anthony.

02-11-2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Shade@Feb 11 2004, 11:27 AM

Plus, that's why the UN was founded after WW II, it's not meant to be ignored by Americans

Nah we 'good' Americans are simply above such things as 'democracy' and 'diplomacy' as the UN advocates.
Do I feel irony there :lol: .

The U.S. governement killed the peace organization they started :mellow: . And any chance of a "use" of the UN in the near future.

withnoapologies

02-11-2004, 09:40 PM

Proof from an Iraqi citizen, the Iraqis obviously are happy that saddam was taken out of power (who wouldnt) but they know that it was all for the oil. if the war was for thegood of the people, when USA bombed their power plant during an air rade, dont you think they would try to FIX it? now Iraqi citizens live through rotation blackouts, how fun. USA doesnt care about that.

Mark

02-11-2004, 09:56 PM

I must disagree.

Originally posted by Derek+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Derek)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The world would not be where it is right now, if it wasn't for America stepping in and protecting other countries to prevent war. Many uninformed people look down on America but thanks to us, the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years. If we didn't step in to help other countries, the world would have faced its armageddon a long time ago.
[/b]

The world would be a less tense and more peaceful place in the US hadn't bombed Iraq over nothing. Do you know how many more people than before are pissed at America? You've got your own people hating your own government. The muslim population of the world hasn't been more offended or outraged since the ravishing of two countries by the Americans in the wave after 9/11. You only bomb other countries on solid proof, not because you want to no matter whether there's proof or not. George Bush is nothing but a greedy, power driven man who has made the lives of homeland and foreign americans very unsafe.

Originally posted by Derek@

Many places around the world are making weapons that are now more than twice as powerful as the atom bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. Yes we had failed intelligence on the WMDs in Iraq, but if it wasn't for America taking precautions to ensure weapons dont end up in the hands of terrorists, we might have had World War 3 by now. I am aware that we gave funding to terrorists in the past, but now we are aware of the mistakes we have made, and we are sure to never make the same mistake in our nations future.

Why not go after North Korea? They possess WMD's, have actually admitted it, and do not like Americans. I don't see Bush going in there because he knows they can fight back and possibly hurt many many people. Iraq were helpless, an easy war at the price of hundreds of american soldiers lives, but no, Bush would never go after a powerful country. It looks grim, but World War 3 is coming unless you lay down your arms and agree to peace talks with everyone.

<!--QuoteBegin--Derek

Yes our economy is in the sh*thole, but consider this. We have not had a terrorist attack on our country since 9/11. We have been threatened more than 5 times, but never once came close to an attack. We have to be doing something right with our "War Against Terrorism" or otherwise, we would have had an attack by now that would dwarf 9/11 in proportion. It may have cost countless lives of soldiers, but the more I consider this War Against Terrorism, the more I start to see exactly how good of an idea it was for America and other countries around the world.

If it wasn't for America, I strongly feel the world would have come to an end due to nuclear war already. And as for Saddam? He was as much of a threat to us as anyone because of his ties to terrorism. We may have not found WMDs this time around, but it was more than clear he had them only a decade earlier. Bombs in which he could've used against the united states.[/quote]

You haven't had an attack because terrorists are smarter than you think. They threaten to get your guard up. You'll (the american government) receive so many threats that eventually you will pay less and less attention to them as time goes along. When a few presidents have come and gone and it seems like terrorism will finally go, they will more than likely strike. It was 8 years between the 93 bombing of the WTC and the 9/11 tragedy. They waited and flew (no pun intended, seriously) under your radar when you felt nothing could harm you. Then they attacked homeland america, struck fear into the minds of everyone, and accomplished their goal of terrorising.

A nuclear war hasn't started yet, but I can see hatred for the US becoming the reason for our first. Think along the lines of peace to accomplish peace.

I hope that doesn't look like a personal attack, just debating.

Shade

02-12-2004, 01:10 AM

the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years.

Sorry to jump on the band wagon but that's not really true. In fact, the U.S. has a great deal to do with the violence that is in Jerusalem today. We, along with Europe and a bunch of other countries at the end of WWII 'gave' Jerusalem to the Jews to share with the people already there. Funny thing is, the people already there didn't really like that plan, and there's been wars being fought over it ever since.

Now, in a lot of ways we are seeing the same things occur in Iraq. I can't even count how many times I've heard of carbombs and suicide bombers attacking American soldiers in Iraq. It's a pretty clear sign they want us out, and have always wanted us out. And despite what some people here think, its not just the 'Brainwashed' populace of Iraq doing these things, its also the fathers whose wives, sons, daughters and parents we've killed off, and tons more otherwise sane people. Not to mention the fact that when the sons who's entire family has been killed grows up, he's probably going to have some things to say, and do, about the U.S. also.

I don't understand how people can think the world is safe after bombing a country and pissing off more or less its entire populace. There is NO possible way to stop terrorism, just as there is no way to stop someone from breaking into your house, car, or bank account. It just depends how badly someone wants to do it, and I'd be willing to be a lot of Iraqis right now would damn well do anything to wreak havok on America. Basking in the death of others? Damn straight they are, and can you honestly say you wouldn't be basking in the deah of someone who kills your entire family?

Ander

02-12-2004, 01:13 AM

Jerusalem = Hebrew land.
If they have a problem with it, leave. Why do the Jews always have to be pushed around?

Shade

02-12-2004, 01:16 AM

the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years.

Um... well its a funny thing. You see when people build their homes and lives in an area where they like. And then a whole bunch of people are given the very land you live on, people tend to get a little testy. They seem to have a problem giving up their entire lives... can't imagine why...

All sarcasm aside, I'm not saying that sending the Jews to Jerusalem was a bad thing, it had good intentions, but it sure as hell had some bad consequences.

Anthony.

02-12-2004, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Shade@Feb 11 2004, 09:16 PM

the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years.

Um... well its a funny thing. You see when people build their homes and lives in an area where they like. And then a whole bunch of people are given the very land you live on, people tend to get a little testy. They seem to have a problem giving up their entire lives... can't imagine why...

All sarcasm aside, I'm not saying that sending the Jews to Jerusalem was a bad thing, it had good intentions, but it sure as hell had some bad consequences.
And an Israeli would tell you he was chased from there 2000 years ago by the Arabs, and he'd be right. So wich place belongs to who? Here are the basics of the conflict. But you see, those 2 communities could live together, but they won't. They prefer to blame each other for everything

Omar A

02-12-2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Avenger+Feb 12 2004, 02:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Avenger @ Feb 12 2004, 02:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Shade@Feb 11 2004, 09:16 PM

the rest of the world is not like it is over in Jerusalem where there has been suicide bombings for over thirty years.

Um... well its a funny thing. You see when people build their homes and lives in an area where they like. And then a whole bunch of people are given the very land you live on, people tend to get a little testy. They seem to have a problem giving up their entire lives... can't imagine why...

All sarcasm aside, I'm not saying that sending the Jews to Jerusalem was a bad thing, it had good intentions, but it sure as hell had some bad consequences.
And an Israeli would tell you he was chased from there 2000 years ago by the Arabs, and he'd be right. So wich place belongs to who? Here are the basics of the conflict. But you see, those 2 communities could live together, but they won't. They prefer to blame each other for everything [/b][/quote]
And America is doing nothing about it because there isn't anything to benefit from unlike Iraq where they can get the oil ;)

Derek The Infamous

02-12-2004, 03:39 AM

Well I had nobody agree with me on this topic so I'm just going to agree to disagree on the whole topic.

If you ask me though, Bush wont go into North Korea because of the fact they not only have WMDs but an army that can compare to the United States'. North Korea is one of the most technologically advanced countries on the earth, America alone wouldn't want to go in and cause war because of the fact North Korea could bomb us. I'm sure they are waiting for the right excuse to do so, and if their nuclear weapons hit us..there is no telling how severe it could be. Remember Hiroshima? Technology has leaped BOUNDARIES since then. I honestly wouldn't want to f*ck with North Korea right now, and I feel if there's anyway we're going to disarm them, its going to be through the support of many other countries INCLUDING france, because one country alone cannot take on North Korea. It's going to take a few.

Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.

Bush is not invading or going into North Korea for a reason, it's too risky at this moment with the reprocussions still stemming from Iraq. Be assured that if they even come close to bombing us or another country, the UN will have NO problem in accepting war. I know damn well that if they become a threat, the world will not sit down at let them rule the world.

Perhaps America or the UN could negotiate with North Korea, but I highly doubt it as they hate America with a passion at the moment.

Ander

02-12-2004, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by The Derek@Feb 11 2004, 08:39 PM
Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.
Wasn't that Japan? :hmm:

acetaminophen

02-12-2004, 05:26 AM

The best way to solve the North Korea problem is to ignore them thoroughly. They are not any threat to the US at all. Kim Jung-il is just desperate to secure his position from the outside world and his own army and people. Kim has no intention and no ability to use the unclear weapons against the US. If you won't kick a sleeping dog first, it won't bite you back. VERY SIMPLE.

:joe:

Kæton

02-12-2004, 05:28 AM

Didn't Korea threaten to bomb Hawaii or something? I could have sworn there was some type of threat because Hawaii-residents were in a bit of distress for a while, and people including teachers in my school were discussing that...:unsure:.

Like I said, I don't keep up with these things :chemist:.

J-Flex

02-12-2004, 07:10 AM

If it wasn't for America, I strongly feel the world would have come to an end due to nuclear war already. And as for Saddam? He was as much of a threat to us as anyone because of his ties to terrorism. We may have not found WMDs this time around, but it was more than clear he had them only a decade earlier. Bombs in which he could've used against the united states.

i am affraid these weapons are already sold to Al-Queda (and/or) other US Enemys....

Will

02-12-2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by The Derek@Feb 11 2004, 11:39 PM
Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.
North Korea wasn't in World War II. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Phantom Duck

02-12-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Will+Feb 12 2004, 08:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Feb 12 2004, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--The Derek@Feb 11 2004, 11:39 PM
Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.
North Korea wasn't in World War II. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. [/b][/quote]
Derek, that's right. I hope you knew this one, or else i'm sorry to say you're uninformed on the whole WW II subject ;)

Just a thought of the moment: USA want to bomb everyone who has nukes, such as North Korea. Who ensures us USA can't use their nuclear weapons against the rest of the worls? Would u Americans like it if the whole world (besides your usual puppies, UK, Spain and Portugal) united against you, saying "We're doing this for fear the Americans might use their nukes for a bad reason"?

Shade

02-12-2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by P#@nt0m Du(k+Feb 12 2004, 02:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (P#@nt0m Du(k @ Feb 12 2004, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Feb 12 2004, 08:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Derek@Feb 11 2004, 11:39 PM
Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.
North Korea wasn't in World War II. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Derek, that's right. I hope you knew this one, or else i'm sorry to say you're uninformed on the whole WW II subject ;)

Just a thought of the moment: USA want to bomb everyone who has nukes, such as North Korea. Who ensures us USA can't use their nuclear weapons against the rest of the worls? Would u Americans like it if the whole world (besides your usual puppies, UK, Spain and Portugal) united against you, saying "We're doing this for fear the Americans might use their nukes for a bad reason"? [/b][/quote]
We have a winner.

That's called American hypocrisy. It's amazing how nearly every one other than our allies have suddenly become terrorists and are not allowed to have weapons. Why should they have to disarm before us? After all, we're the ones who went in and bombed helpless 3rd world nations. who exactly are the terrorists now?

Phantom Duck

02-12-2004, 03:49 PM

^^ My thoughts exactly.

Derek The Infamous

02-12-2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by P#@nt0m Du(k+Feb 12 2004, 09:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (P#@nt0m Du(k @ Feb 12 2004, 09:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Feb 12 2004, 08:18 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--The Derek@Feb 11 2004, 11:39 PM
Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. North Korea were responsible for that too and we let the intelligence slip right under our nose, just like 9/11.
North Korea wasn't in World War II. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Derek, that's right. I hope you knew this one, or else i'm sorry to say you're uninformed on the whole WW II subject ;) [/b][/quote]
Alright, I get it people. I made a little blunder with my facts. I'd prefer if you'd comment on the other important parts of my post.

Omar A

02-12-2004, 07:47 PM

If you ask me though, Bush wont go into North Korea because of the fact they not only have WMDs but an army that can compare to the United States'. North Korea is one of the most technologically advanced countries on the earth, America alone wouldn't want to go in and cause war because of the fact North Korea could bomb us.

Which is why I think the US government are pussies and can only pick on weak and hopeless countries.

Shade

02-12-2004, 07:56 PM

Well, I'm not sure that our government are 'pussies', but that fact that we invaded Iraq instead of N. Korea makes the whole argument that we went in to get rid of WoMD completely invalid. If we were so concerned about WoMD then we would have gone to places like N. Korea where they um.. ACTUALLY HAVE weapons, and have threatened to use them. They threatened at one point to turn the U.S. into a 'sea of fire', meanwhile we're going off to Iraq to bomb civilian huts. I'm not saying that we should do what we did in Iraq to N. Korea at all, I'm just saying that if we were concerned about WoMD and not say OIL, we would have picked a different target.

And an Israeli would tell you he was chased from there 2000 years ago by the Arabs, and he'd be right. So wich place belongs to who? Here are the basics of the conflict. But you see, those 2 communities could live together, but they won't. They prefer to blame each other for everything

Absolutely, my only point was that the U.S. in fact had a great deal to do with the problems in Jerusalem. :)

Edit: Source for 'sea of fire' quote -- www.theboywhocriediraq.com

Anthony.

02-12-2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Keaton@Feb 12 2004, 01:28 AM
Didn't Korea threaten to bomb Hawaii or something? I could have sworn there was some type of threat because Hawaii-residents were in a bit of distress for a while, and people including teachers in my school were discussing that...:unsure:.

Like I said, I don't keep up with these things :chemist:.
Yes Keaton, the Taepo-Dong 2 is in reach of Hawaii and the Aleutian (sp?) islands. And with the Taepo-Dong 3, it's gonna be worst. The missile will reach most of western Canada/U.S. and some parts of the East Coast (like New York :| ).

North Korea's the enemy. I'll maybe do a topic on that with lots of information.

Derek The Infamous

02-12-2004, 09:44 PM

Thank GOD I have a friend who's half intelligent in what's going on with the world otherwise I would have been just as brain-washed as the rest of you are right now. Sure, there's information that goes against what we've heard from the news, but who's to say the liberalist media (meaning newspapers) aren't filling you full of bullsh*t to make you believe that America is feeding you well....bullsh*t? Bettter to cover up lies with more lies aye? ;)

This might seem like I'm going against every anti-government comment I've made in the past few months but that guy on that website is WAY misinformed. First off, Bush Sr. didn't give saddam his weapons. People like to say that so that they can act like Bush is covering up his fathers blunders, but in reality Bush is only covering up Ronald Reagan's mistake. Reagan was the one who helped out Saddam Hussein and not Bush's father.

Another thing, America has ALWAYS gone to war when a threat was involved. We never ever said that we were going to war just for the sake of 'liberating the Iraqi people' we always said that we were going in to try and take down Saddam Hussein as well. Also nothing against the French members of these forums, but a little overlooked fact is that the French government gave Iraq the materials to assemble WMDs, that's the true reason America is so bitter with the French now rather then just because they wouldn't help us in the war. Keep in mind this is a rant against their government, and not the people themselves (put your gun down Kat :P.)

Also, you want to know why we haven't gone to North Korea? We're flat ass broke. We're so far in debt from going after saddam hussein that to go after North Korea with only our money would force this country into another 'depression'. Bush knows that and until we can get a better grip on our economy and more ecomonical support from other countries..I don't think we are going anywhere.

Just because we are broke does not mean we cannot fight back, however. We still use all of the technologies we use to protect our people, and in the event Korea was definetely planning an attack on us (a date was confirmed) America wouldn't simply shrug off that intelligence and walk away from it.

Also? Once again my friend gave me a very valid point that I soon was able to confirm. Korea is as broke as we are, they are starving their people to develop these weapons. If they really need to do that to even use the techonology they have, they clearly do not have the funds to launch a war against the united states. Remember to go to war you need money. I hope none of you forgot about the 500+ Billion federal deficeit our country is in at the moment.

My friend should have posted this instead of me, but I'm so humoured by all the inconsistencies we've found in that Anti-Bush website that I honestly feel he's just another brainwashed liberal like that annoying idiot Michael Moore who uses his own form of "Political Bullsh*t" to rally the gullible percentage of the american people against the united states government. I'm sorry but it takes a bullsh*tter to know one guys. Especially since you're so convinced America went after Iraq for oil, even though Iraq doesn't have a large enough amount of it to even affect our economy. OH YES! Let's rally alongside one of the most arrogant activists of our time!

Also, for all you people who are angry enough that the United States might have protected oil fields so that we could have oil for our country..let me ask you something: Do you enjoy your warm house? Do you enjoy being able to drive all across this great country of ours without a care in the world? I'm sure you do. But I'm sure you haven't considered that if it wasn't for oil, you wouldn't be able be warm when it was under 30 degrees outside, much less..you wouldnt be able to drive to your friends house a few miles away instead of having to walk that long distance.

In case you forgot, oil makes up for one of the largest resources our country takes for granted. Do your homework and consider all the things that you use that require oil to work properly. Now imagine a life without any of those things. Life just became pretty sh*tty didn't it? You arrogant "oil activists" fail to see that oil, made the gas that you people used to drive to buy the computer you are typing on at this exact moment.

And you said America doesn't have a reason to need oil, give me a break. We take it for granted every single day of our lives.

I am no longer going to be against Bush and instead I'm going to side by Will, because for once...everything the Bush supporters are saying is starting to make sense. This all started when Carter refused to do anything because he was such a pacifist. You want to blame somebody? Blame him or Reagan.

Omar A

02-12-2004, 10:12 PM

who's to say the liberalist media (meaning newspapers) aren't filling you full of bullsh*t to make you believe that America is feeding you well....bullsh*t? Bettter to cover up lies with more lies aye?

We're actually complaining about the media and its propaganda and how they keep covering for Bush. :mellow:

First off, Bush Sr. didn't give saddam his weapons. People like to say that so that they can act like Bush is covering up his fathers blunders, but in reality Bush is only covering up Ronald Reagan's mistake. Reagan was the one who helped out Saddam Hussein and not Bush's father.

No one said that Bush is covering up his father. People simply said that America gave the weapons to Iraq.

French government gave Iraq the materials to assemble WMDs

Wasn't it Russia?

Also, you want to know why we haven't gone to North Korea? We're flat ass broke. We're so far in debt from going after saddam hussein that to go after North Korea with only our money would force this country into another 'depression'.

When North Korea threatened America, it was expected that America would go to war with North Korea but instead threatened Syria, Why? Because Syria's a weak country just like Iraq

Especially since you're so convinced America went after Iraq for oil, even though Iraq doesn't have a large enough amount of it to even affect our economy

What are you talking about? Iraq has like the most oil in the middle east.

Also, for all you people who are angry enough that the United States might have protected oil fields so that we could have oil for our country..let me ask you something: Do you enjoy your warm house? Do you enjoy being able to drive all across this great country of ours without a care in the world? I'm sure you do. But I'm sure you haven't considered that if it wasn't for oil, you wouldn't be able be warm when it was under 30 degrees outside, much less..you wouldnt be able to drive to your friends house a few miles away instead of having to walk that long distance.

In case you forgot, oil makes up for one of the largest resources our country takes for granted. Do your homework and consider all the things that you use that require oil to work properly. Now imagine a life without any of those things. Life just became pretty sh*tty didn't it? You arrogant "oil activists" fail to see that oil, made the gas that you people used to drive to buy the computer you are typing on at this exact moment.

So your saying to either Steal or struggle? Iraqs oil belongs to Iraq. Just because Iraq wants to keep their oil, It doesn't give America any reason to invade the country and kill thousands of people.

Derek The Infamous

02-12-2004, 10:48 PM

We're actually complaining about the media and its propaganda and how they keep covering for Bush. :mellow:

I was complaining about how some forms of media (aka Michael Moore and his tapes) spread bullsh*t to make America look worse then they really are. So I was going against what you all have been saying.

No one said that Bush is covering up his father. People simply said that America gave the weapons to Iraq.

Maybe, but they are using it in a way to make their points against the Bush Administration have more substance. That mistake happened over 10 years ago and WAY before George Bush Jr. yet somehow its making its way into this discussion against the America of today. An America that is changing in the wake of 9/11.

Wasn't it Russia?

It was the both of them. They didn't support us in the UN yet after that we found out that they were selling weapons to Iraq, even though the UN said they could not. We didn't find any WMDs but the United states found out that over 10 companies in France were receiving money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for weapons and ammunition. Once again I have nothing against the people of these countries, but if you see what I just posted..you can clearly see why america thought Iraq had WMDs. Those countries were selling weapons to Iraq for god's sake.

When North Korea threatened America, it was expected that America would go to war with North Korea but instead threatened Syria, Why? Because Syria's a weak country just like Iraq.

And who's to say that's the exact reason we threatened Syria? America doesn't go against countries because they are "weak". We threaten countries because we have a cause for concern. I wouldn't call Iraq weak when they had one of the most powerful dictators in the world, and have people who are capable of making their own bombs to use against the United States. And let me remind you that it wasn't only us who gave weapons to Iraq..it was France and Russia as well. With that amount of weapons support, how Iraq be "weak"? Think about it. Iraq was as much of a threat as anybody else.

What are you talking about? Iraq has like the most oil in the middle east.

Wrong. If America really wanted oil and only that, they would invade Saudi Arabia. SA has the most oil out of any country situated in the Middle East. Not Iraq like most of you believe. America wouldn't go after Iraq if they needed oil. There are much larger sources of oil we can use.

So your saying to either Steal or struggle? Iraqs oil belongs to Iraq. Just because Iraq wants to keep their oil, It doesn't give America any reason to invade the country and kill thousands of people.

Once again you assume America went in purely for oil. They went in to get that b*stard Saddam Hussein.

If you really want to discuss our concerns for oil, then okay I'll go there. If Iraq denied us oil, it would be a major blow to us. We've already had to raise our gas prices because oil was denied to us in the past. Yet...if anything, that made up only a mere 10% of our reason for going to war. Not the majority of it like you believe. America believed Saddam was hiding weapons. We now know that intelligence wasn't correct, but rather then hide our mistakes we admitted it in public and now are conducting investigations to see just how incorrect we were.

Once again...not for oil.

LornVourkolakas

02-12-2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by acetaminophen@Feb 10 2004, 02:02 AM
O.K. I'm not an American citizen. (Though I'm threatened by my boss, my wife and my daughter everyday.)

I'm reading Michael Moore's 'Dude, Where's my country?' now. (I mean YOUR country of course.)

What do you think of his opinions? Is Bush really that kind of 'Sun of Beach'?

The Bush administration sent your sons and daughters off to fight a war that did not need to be fought BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS ANY REAL THREAT AT ALL?

I want to know your (real US citizens') candid thinking about Bush and War in Iraq.

:whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
Bush is a republican so the war didn't surprise me. I can't say I don't like Bush and can't say that I do. But I can say that I disagree with things he has done. I think the war was the good choice, in a way. I'm not fully informed on what has happened. But if someone attacked my country, I'd give them hell.

Omar A

02-12-2004, 11:06 PM

It was the both of them. They didn't support us in the UN yet after that we found out that they were selling weapons to Iraq, even though the UN said they could not. We didn't find any WMDs but the United states found out that over 10 companies in France were receiving money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for weapons and ammunition. Once again I have nothing against the people of these countries, but if you see what I just posted..you can clearly see why america thought Iraq had WMDs. Those countries were selling weapons to Iraq for god's sake.

Who has the most WMD?? America does. So where is the justice?

And let me remind you that it wasn't only us who gave weapons to Iraq..it was France and Russia as well. With that amount of weapons support, how Iraq be "weak"? Think about it. Iraq was as much of a threat as anybody else.

It took America to invade a country and capture it leader in less than a year. How is that not weak? :rolleyes:

Wrong. If America really wanted oil and only that, they would invade Saudi Arabia

America wouldn't invade Saudi Arabia because Saudi already gives them their oil ;)

If Iraq denied us oil, it would be a major blow to us.

Iraq did deny the US oil, and the gases did go up which is why there was no other choice but to go to war.

But if someone attacked my country, I'd give them hell.

Exactly!!!

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 12:51 AM

Who has the most WMD?? America does. So where is the justice?

But unlike most countries we actually don't plan to use them. Not after we saw what happened with Hiroshima and the horrible aftermath of it all. Sure it ended WII but the bomb worked a little too well.

It took America to invade a country and capture it leader in less than a year. How is that not weak? :rolleyes:

Not to sound cynical but it took only 3 hours for Al-Queda to bomb america three times on 9/11 and cripple America for a few months. Are we weak? No. The speed of invasion doesn't tell a nation's strength. I believe brainpower has a lot more to do with it.

America wouldn't invade Saudi Arabia because Saudi already gives them their oil ;)

Precisely. We can agree on that much, because America is in agreement/trade with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't forsee bad relations with them anytime in our near future.

Iraq did deny the US oil, and the gases did go up which is why there was no other choice but to go to war.

But that wasn't the only reason we went to war mind you. Yes they did f*ck with us in the sense of oil, but we had many other reasons to start war with Iraq besides the oil situation.

Exactly!!!

I don't know if you meant that as in "Iraq hasn't attacked us, therefore we had no need for war." but I believe we were right in going to war because we got who we came for: Saddam Hussein. He's now in American custody and will probably never ever see Iraq ever again. If he's lucky he'll get life in a maximum security prison.

Omar A

02-13-2004, 01:09 AM

But unlike most countries we actually don't plan to use them.

Oh really? How do you know that?

Not to sound cynical but it took only 3 hours for Al-Queda to bomb america three times on 9/11 and cripple America for a few months. Are we weak? No. The speed of invasion doesn't tell a nation's strength. I believe brainpower has a lot more to do with it.

Al-Queda terrorized 2 little place in 3 hours, but America invaded a whole country in like 7 months. Do the math.

Precisely. We can agree on that much, because America is in agreement/trade with Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't forsee bad relations with them anytime in our near future.

And if tommorow Saudi changed their minds and decided not to share the oil. Would you support America to go to war and kill innocent people that have nothing to do with the oil?

we had many other reasons to start war with Iraq besides the oil situation.

Would you list all the reasons for me please.

I don't know if you meant that as in "Iraq hasn't attacked us, therefore we had no need for war." but I believe we were right in going to war because we got who we came for: Saddam Hussein. He's now in American custody and will probably never ever see Iraq ever again. If he's lucky he'll get life in a maximum security prison.

Yea, but see the problem is that innocent people died including American Soldiers (may they rest in peace) for one person that probably won't even be executed but put in jail for the rest of his life, thats like 10 years in prison considering he's now like 68 and he'll probably won't even live for another 10 years.

Mark

02-13-2004, 01:24 AM

The fact that we disagree with your points and side with another explanation does not make us brainwashed, Derek. We choose to accept the truth as we see fit in our eyes.

George Bush Sr wanted to invade Iraq, it has been written about before, but he didn't have enough time. So, George Bush Jr, with the help of Jeb Bush in the election, was put into office so he could complete his fathers work. And he did.

I don't know which president supplied the Iraqis with these weapons, but the american government did help Iraq. They no longer have the weapons, so is this a desperate attempt to try to make the government look better for helping the enemy in the past?

The French, along with Canada, Germany, Russia, and many other countries declined to help out in the Iraq war. Why? They were sensible. They didn't want to attract the reprocussions which America has undoubtedly brought upon themselves.

The US has not gone to war with North Korea yet. They are a huge threat, they have threatened the US before. Why delay and let the North Korean government improve their technologies when you can commence peace talks or take military action? They have confirmed that they have WMD's. You go into a country like Iraq with no intelligence and invade, yet you refuse to invade a country which has came out and said themselves that they don't like you, they are your enemy, and they have WMD's. Why? It's because they don't want another vietnam disaster. If Kim Jong Il is starving his people and is a menace to society, why not remove THIS dictator who hates america so much?

The other reason you're not going in is because, yes, you are highly in debt. You're in debt over an unnecessary war. And it's the American People who are suffering, along with the Iraqi civilians. Jobs lost, fear runs rampid, a lying government, some freedom that is, right? You could be saving lives instead of destroying them with blood money.

Go watch Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore is no idiot.

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 01:37 AM

Well first I would like to thank you for holding a good debate. You've had some intelligent answers here...but to continue.

Oh really? How do you know that?

To be honest I don't. But after all we've done to ensure the safety and peace of other countries (we aren't bomb happy people), I doubt we'd want to start a nuclear war that could destroy our entire world. We're not that stupid, we'd rather live another century or more.

Al-Queda terrorized 2 little place in 3 hours, but America invaded a whole country in like 7 months. Do the math.

That's actually slow if you think about it. If it wasn't for the game of cat and mouse saddam hussein decided to play with us by hiding in spider holes across Iraq, we would have been finished a lot sooner in my honest opinion.

And if tommorow Saudi changed their minds and decided not to share the oil. Would you support America to go to war and kill innocent people that have nothing to do with the oil?

No because then they would have gone into war for only one reason, a reason that isn't near important enough to start a war on its own.

Would you list all the reasons for me please.

Sure. I'll post all the reasons I can remember at this current time..

1. We wanted to free Iraq of the dictatorship it was currently under. Under saddam's rule, his people were not even allowed to listen to music, which is something us Americans nearly live on.

2. To take Saddam Hussein out of power. Not only was he giving america trouble, he was also oppressing his people. America doesn't want another Adolf Hitler in the world, even though nobody could ever be as bad as him.

3. We went on intelligence (in which we now know was incorrect) that suggested Iraq had WMDs and planned to use them. The country itself claimed to have them only for us to find out later that it was all untrue and that our intelligence failed. This is why we're going into a large investigation..to find out just how badly the government was misled. But at the time of the war we believed we were at threat by Iraq.

4. Like or or not, Saddam is a terrorist. Just like Osama Bin Laden. If Bush was going to keep his promise on having this "War On Terror" Saddam Hussein had to be one of the many targets. Now that we have him, we're probably going to go after Osama...assuming he isn't dead somewhere in a cave.

Yea, but see the problem is that innocent people died including American Soldiers (may they rest in peace) for one person that probably won't even be executed but put in jail for the rest of his life, thats like 10 years in prison considering he's now like 68 and he'll probably won't even live for another 10 years.

But you are forcefed into believing that we caused the majority of the civilian casualties when in fact it was saddam supporters attempting to keep civilians from assisting the americans after saddam's capture. There are more car bombings now that Saddam was captured then throughout the entire Iraqi war. Saddam's loyalists are pissed and they are willing to take out any civilian or soldier who threatens to change the ways of saddam hussein. We are not walking up to civilians and shooting them in the head. That would be senseless considering we already got who we came for. We're simply trying to stabilize Iraq enough so that they can handle a non dictating form of government. Right now with all the loyalists still after american/british soldiers..that's a little hard.

You people forget the good that has came out of this. Do you not forget all the happy Iraqis who celebrated in the streets the day Saddam was caught? People felt free for the first time in thier lives. To give an idea of the change consider this: Music bootlegging is on the rise in Iraq. They have no way to have official cds, but the music business is soaring in Iraq now that saddam isnt around to tell people they absolutely cannot listen to music or forms of entertainment. If it wasn't for America...people would be afraid to listen to music.

Everyone has some very valid points and I really enjoy this debate as it is one of the most intelligent debates to ever exist on LPA. I was a bit rude earlier, nobody is brainwashed...we just have different views on the government of America ;). Hell my view used to be positive, then it became negative and now its back to positive again. It's all part of living in a country that's going through war. Sometimes you question the decisions of your leaders, and sometimes you agree with them.

Shade

02-13-2004, 01:40 AM

First off Derek, without being too rude, you really need to start citing some sources for what your saying, especially since your so convinced that one, such as Michael Moore, who directed an award winning movie, and has brought many issues to light, AND provides sources for his information, is full of ####.

But unlike most countries we actually don't plan to use them.

And when did Iraq say, recently, that they were planning on using WoMD on us? They didn't even have intercontinental missiles to carry any warheads that they might have had, according to NPR. And now we can't find any warheads in the first place... so where is the threat exactly that we so boldy protected ourselves from? Saddam? No doubt he's an #######, so instead now we're killing his people for him? Made it easier for him in that regard, now he doesn't have to lead the executions anymore.

What you seem to call being 'brainwashed' is what I tend to call freedom of speech and thought. While you have a point that there are places that bullshit people into thinking there's bullshit about the government, are you really prepared to say that every single political analyst that says Bush lied about so many things regarding Iraq is full of ####? Damn, well I guess 75% or so of the current political analysts, don't know what their talking about.

We don't plan to use our nuclear weapons? Lets see...who has used nuclear weapons before...oh wait US! We're the only one's that I'm aware of that have EVER used nuclear bombs on another country. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to tell all the other countries to disarm?

The fact that we're broke has very little to do with N. Korea. The point being made was that if we were concerned about WoMD, we would have chosen a more likely target such as N. Korea INSTEAD of Iraq ie. before the deficit.

While Iraq may not have the most oil, they still have some, and there the ones denying it to us. After all, we have to get all the oil we can to fuel the poorest fuel efficient SUV's ever made, since Bush decided the environment could go to hell and pulled out of the Kyoto Agreement and more or less every other environmental issue to date. Live for the moment, all other generations can go to hell seems to be the standard nowadays.

We threaten countries because we have a cause for concern? Damn sounds like a tyrnanical rule to me if I've ever heard of one. Have you heard of diplomacy? Bush sure hasn't, that's why he bascially mooned the U.N.

God bless Oil, oops I mean America.

Omar A

02-13-2004, 02:16 AM

That's actually slow if you think about it. If it wasn't for the game of cat and mouse saddam hussein decided to play with us by hiding in spider holes across Iraq, we would have been finished a lot sooner in my honest opinion.

and thats why I said its a weak country in the first place ;)

1. We wanted to free Iraq of the dictatorship it was currently under. Under saddam's rule, his people were not even allowed to listen to music, which is something us Americans nearly live on.

2. To take Saddam Hussein out of power. Not only was he giving america trouble, he was also oppressing his people. America doesn't want another Adolf Hitler in the world, even though nobody could ever be as bad as him.

3. We went on intelligence (in which we now know was incorrect) that suggested Iraq had WMDs and planned to use them. The country itself claimed to have them only for us to find out later that it was all untrue and that our intelligence failed. This is why we're going into a large investigation..to find out just how badly the government was misled. But at the time of the war we believed we were at threat by Iraq.

4. Like or or not, Saddam is a terrorist. Just like Osama Bin Laden. If Bush was going to keep his promise on having this "War On Terror" Saddam Hussein had to be one of the many targets. Now that we have him, we're probably going to go after Osama...assuming he isn't dead somewhere in a cave.

So your main reason is that going to war was to get Saddam right? He had an interview with Tony Benn on CBC and he said that he's willing to Negotiate. So why go to war??!!

You people forget the good that has came out of this. Do you not forget all the happy Iraqis who celebrated in the streets the day Saddam was caught?

Those poeple were a group that are like %30 of Iraq called "shiah" (notice the red flags they were carrying) and they don't represend Iraq.

Shade

02-13-2004, 02:18 AM

So your main reason is that going to war was to get Saddam right? He had an interview with Tony Benn on CBC and he said that he's willing to Negotiate. So why go to war??!!

In fact he tried to negotiate. We, the US closed the doors on them and cut communication.

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 02:19 AM

Once again, valid points but since you claim I am sourceless, I will simply reply with what I believe to be existing knowledge that others already know.

No doubt he's an #######, so instead now we're killing his people for him? Made it easier for him in that regard, now he doesn't have to lead the executions anymore.

To really get an idea of who's killing who, all you need to turn to is Fox News. Loyalists of saddam hussein are carrying out their own acts of terrorism via carbombs and killings of civilians who attempt to assist our armed forces. There was ONE reported american civilian casualty that I can remember and that was when a car would not stop heading towards an american base in Iraq after being ordered to stop/turn around SEVERAL times. When you give a big "#### you" to a bunch of soldiers who are nervous of getting attacked, bad things are going to happen. They were under stressful conditions and acted on the only thing that came to their minds.

While you have a point that there are places that bullshit people into thinking there's bullshit about the government, are you really prepared to say that every single political analyst that says Bush lied about so many things regarding Iraq is full of ####? Damn, well I guess 75% or so of the current political analysts, don't know what their talking about.

Alright, I was a bit wrong to make it seem like EVERY anti-bush person is full of ####, but I'm glad you can see some places actually bullshit americans into hating George Bush and the government. I will admit that there are quite a couple of intelligent political analysts and some of them do have very valid points, and those are the types I agree with. Others that only seem to look at the ####ups america supposedly does, are the ones that I believe to be the bullsh*tters. While lots of people follow what Michael Moore says, I honestly cannot stand the guy. It's a matter of what you want to believe, hence why I retracted the brainwashed comment.

We don't plan to use our nuclear weapons? Lets see...who has used nuclear weapons before...oh wait US! We're the only one's that I'm aware of that have EVER used nuclear bombs on another country. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to tell all the other countries to disarm?

Yes that is in a sense ignorant of us to do so, but you're criticizing america for a mistake we made over 50 years ago. One that we have been known to regret at times during our eventful history.

The fact that we're broke has very little to do with N. Korea. The point being made was that if we were concerned about WoMD, we would have chosen a more likely target such as N. Korea INSTEAD of Iraq ie. before the deficit.

Yes but something had to spark the government's interest for them to want to wage war against Iraq without the UN's support. Keep that thought in mind, while we f*cked up..perhaps the intelligence was so believable that we never thought it could have been false.

While Iraq may not have the most oil, they still have some, and there the ones denying it to us. After all, we have to get all the oil we can to fuel the poorest fuel efficient SUV's ever made, since Bush decided the environment could go to hell and pulled out of the Kyoto Agreement and more or less every other environmental issue to date.

If Bush really thought the environment could go to hell he wouldn't have agreed on 'emissions testing' to ensure those sh*tty SUVs and other cars dont leak hazardous gases into our ecosystem. While it might seem that we are pulling out of programs, we are making new ones at the same time.

Live for the moment, all other generations can go to hell seems to be the standard nowadays.

Then why is bush planning a very ambitious mission to have men on mars within the next 30 years? This to to find possible resources that we can use to broaden our technology as well as to build the knowledge of the children of tommorow. If you ask me, Bush had the future in mind when he made that decision. No other president has launched such an ambitious plan for space exploration. Keep in mind we used shuttles for over 30 years, only Bush has pushed for a new, safer and more technologically advanced way to get into space.

We threaten countries because we have a cause for concern? Damn sounds like a tyrnanical rule to me if I've ever heard of one. Have you heard of diplomacy? Bush sure hasn't, that's why he bascially mooned the U.N.

God bless Oil, oops I mean America.

We have gone without UN support many times before this. Everyone focuses on Bush doing this although this wasn't even the first time we made a decision without UN support.

And as much as I respect your debates..the last sentence was a bit ignorant, especially since you say I need PROOF when you have no proof we are in it just for oil. You can back it up with claims that your favorite activists have said but you have no solid proof america did the war only for oil.

--
I believe I may have covered everything Mark said in a different way but I will address one very important part of his post in which he stated:

The US has not gone to war with North Korea yet. They are a huge threat, they have threatened the US before. Why delay and let the North Korean government improve their technologies when you can commence peace talks or take military action? They have confirmed that they have WMD's. You go into a country like Iraq with no intelligence and invade, yet you refuse to invade a country which has came out and said themselves that they don't like you, they are your enemy, and they have WMD's. Why? It's because they don't want another vietnam disaster. If Kim Jong Il is starving his people and is a menace to society, why not remove THIS dictator who hates america so much?

The other reason you're not going in is because, yes, you are highly in debt. You're in debt over an unnecessary war. And it's the American People who are suffering, along with the Iraqi civilians. Jobs lost, fear runs rampid, a lying government, some freedom that is, right? You could be saving lives instead of destroying them with blood money

I'm sure although they have not made any public statement to support this belief, that America is not ignoring North Korea. Bush has already said in the past that the war on terror would not be quick, and could go on for a long time. I strongly believe that rather then go all gung-ho and attack every threat in sight, America is carefully taking care of one threat before they move on to another.

Broke as we may be, I can honestly see a decision to take care of North Korea within the near future...the only way to really consider why america hasnt gone after North Korea yet is because perhaps from the intelligence they have, a threat is not that large yet. This is the only thing I cannot answer, as I myself cannot wait until the situation over there is resolved so we can have that threat off our backs. America isn't liable to launch another war on the heels of the war in Iraq. Wars not only require money, they require preparation.

It's clear that N. Korea could give a #### about peace talks so yes, I do see another war within the next 3-5 years. We have no choice, unless we can successfully assasinate thier leader through some brilliant espionage. Let's just hope that when that time comes, this doesn't turn out to be the big one.
--

Man I'm getting tired, I may have to handle future replies against mine later on.

Omar A

02-13-2004, 02:31 AM

To really get an idea of who's killing who, all you need to turn to is Fox News. Loyalists of saddam hussein are carrying out their own acts of terrorism via carbombs and killings of civilians who attempt to assist our armed forces.

Just because Iraqi people are fighting back doesn't make them loyal to Saddam. They are fighting against an invasion.

Then why is bush planning a very ambitious mission to have men on mars within the next 30 years?

Because he's a greedy ###### that wants more land for americans to live in.

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Omar A@Feb 12 2004, 10:31 PM

To really get an idea of who's killing who, all you need to turn to is Fox News. Loyalists of saddam hussein are carrying out their own acts of terrorism via carbombs and killings of civilians who attempt to assist our armed forces.

Just because Iraqi people are fighting back doesn't make them loyal to Saddam. They are fighting against an invasion.

Then why is bush planning a very ambitious mission to have men on mars within the next 30 years?

Because he's a greedy ###### that wants more land for americans to live in.
You didn't post much so I can do one last post then I'm going to bed. We in no way invaded Iraq, our men are being killed by anti-americans more then we are actually causing harm to civilians, which is little to none.

Secondly, if I remember right..Bush encouraged other countries to help in the Mars program. If he was really greedy he would of had america do it by themselves.

But I'm too tired to debate, I'll handle the rest tommorrow. Thanks for the smart discussion ya'll.

Shade

02-13-2004, 02:43 AM

Well argued.

To really get an idea of who's killing who, all you need to turn to is Fox News.

I really can't let that one slide. Do you realize who fox news is owned by? None other than a relative of Bush. It is one of the most biased, conservative stations on the air. Of course they're going to show those type of things, they want the entire populace to be conservative. By far the most effective, unbiased source of news is NPR.

perhaps the intelligence was so believable that we never thought it could have been false.

What intelligence? I assume your referring to the intelligence that Bush made up. CIA told Bush way before the war that there was no intelligence newer than 10 years that suggested Iraq had any resembling a WoMD. Or perhaps it's the intelligence that Saudi Arabia (I believe this is correct, I may be remembering wrong) gave weapons to Iraq, which was proven completely false and Bush used it in a speech anyways. (All of this comes from a report PBS did).

If Bush really thought the environment could go to hell he wouldn't have agreed on 'emissions testing' to ensure those sh*tty SUVs and other cars dont leak hazardous gases into our ecosystem. While it might seem that we are pulling out of programs, we are making new ones at the same time.

The emissions testing that Bush has put into effect are well below the standars of the agreements that we have dropped out of. Bottom line, Bush couldn't care less about the environment. He even said in a speech that he doesn't believe in Global Warming... Note the state he was governor in, has some of the worst polution out of any state.

We have gone without UN support many times before this. Everyone focuses on Bush doing this although this wasn't even the first time we made a decision without UN support.

I'm unaware of any such instances, I would really like to see some (honestly), I would be interested. Either way though, not only did we go against the U.N. we made a preemptive strike against a country that was willing to negotiate. This has never been done by the U.S. before, and its a sad thing to see that its been done now.

Then why is bush planning a very ambitious mission to have men on mars within the next 30 years?

That is a good point. However, Bush has done so much to weaken the environment ie. future and lifespan of our country, not to mention wiping out tons of Social Security, cutting education funds for his own 'No Billionare, oops I mean Child left Behind Act', and further weakened our healthcare. The future for America is looking grim, and it affects the whole world. While its good that we're looking at other planets, we also have to consider the planet we live on.

And as much as I respect your debates..the last sentence was a bit ignorant, especially since you say I need PROOF when you have no proof we are in it just for oil.

Proof that we are in it for oil:

WoMD - if we were concerned about them we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. No intelligence suggested they had any, and there are plenty of other countries that do have them.

Liberate Iraqi People: not in the slightest. We didn't even help the Jews in WWII, we haven't gotten that much more benevolent since then (quite the opposite in my opinion). There's gotta be something in it for us, hence oil.

Get Saddam Out: This is indeed a side goal, but once again, no proof Saddam was a threat. Iraq had no intercontinental missiles that could reach us, that was known last spring, according to NPR, and now no weapons. Plus he was willing to negotiate. While Saddam is a horrible person, a preemptive strike was not the solution to get him out for the costs encountered, and is simply now a reason that many give as an excuse for the war.

Really there aren't many more reasons for the war other than oil. Repeated a lot of stuff to state my point, once again comes down to what you believe in.

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh in my last post. Easy to get fired up talking about politics :) . This is a great debate though. This is my last post for the night, I'll check again, and make some replys if there's stuff to reply to tomorrow.

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 02:47 AM

I'll reply to this stuff tommorrow, just dont post too much! I dont wanna reply to 4847829684 posts. :lol:

Will

02-13-2004, 05:20 AM

After reading all the posts in here over again, I have come to one (or two) conclusion(s):

George Bush has ruined the United States' credibility as a peace-keeping nation and has essentially made the US look like cowards. He has made the US look like nothing more than a money-hungry nation.

If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.

Ander

02-13-2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 12 2004, 10:20 PM
Because the US is afraid.
Hell yea, I'm afraid. I dont want to glow, much less be a glowing dead body.

Will

02-13-2004, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by superxero88+Feb 13 2004, 01:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (superxero88 @ Feb 13 2004, 01:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 12 2004, 10:20 PM
Because the US is afraid.
Hell yea, I'm afraid. I dont want to glow, much less be a glowing dead body. [/b][/quote]
Glowing would be cool.

Except I wouldn't be able to sleep very good. :unsure:

Ander

02-13-2004, 05:36 AM

The prospect of somehow gaining super nuclear powers is also entising...

Phantom Duck

02-13-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 13 2004, 06:20 AM
After reading all the posts in here over again, I have come to one (or two) conclusion(s):

George Bush has ruined the United States' credibility as a peace-keeping nation and has essentially made the US look like cowards. He has made the US look like nothing more than a money-hungry nation.

If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
And that's why USA attacked Iraq: Bush KNEW Saddam didn't have any WOMDs.

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 03:42 PM

I really can't let that one slide. Do you realize who fox news is owned by? None other than a relative of Bush. It is one of the most biased, conservative stations on the air. Of course they're going to show those type of things, they want the entire populace to be conservative. By far the most effective, unbiased source of news is NPR.

But then there are news sources out there enticing people to be liberals ;). It's all a matter of who you'd like to be, and personally I don't want to be a liberal, so I choose to follow Fox News and CNN and etc.

What intelligence? I assume your referring to the intelligence that Bush made up. CIA told Bush way before the war that there was no intelligence newer than 10 years that suggested Iraq had any resembling a WoMD. Or perhaps it's the intelligence that Saudi Arabia (I believe this is correct, I may be remembering wrong) gave weapons to Iraq, which was proven completely false and Bush used it in a speech anyways. (All of this comes from a report PBS did).

If Bush really did ever make up information (which I still don't believe) it was for a reason, to get Saddam Hussein. I doubt he'd purposely make up a whole story just to get oil. If he wanted that oil so bad he could simply talk to Saudi Arabia with a deal to get even more oil from them, which in turn would be a lot cheaper then a war.

The emissions testing that Bush has put into effect are well below the standars of the agreements that we have dropped out of. Bottom line, Bush couldn't care less about the environment. He even said in a speech that he doesn't believe in Global Warming... Note the state he was governor in, has some of the worst polution out of any state.

Which will hurt him in the next election when it comes time for a new president to be decided. People who want to live in a safe world in 20 years will turn their faces away from Bush. However, the favorite "John Kerry" isn't so much of a good guy either, considering he was caught spreading lies about Bush over the internet and is planning to increase our military considerably. (Aka, sending a greater amount of men to be killed in each war).

I'm unaware of any such instances, I would really like to see some (honestly), I would be interested. Either way though, not only did we go against the U.N. we made a preemptive strike against a country that was willing to negotiate. This has never been done by the U.S. before, and its a sad thing to see that its been done now.

These were more back in my father's time, but since I cannot think of any off the top of my head I will get back to you on this after researching it. You are right about the attacking a country without negotiation though, Bush ruined some of our credibility and I will address that when I quote parts from Will's post.

The future for America is looking grim, and it affects the whole world. While its good that we're looking at other planets, we also have to consider the planet we live on.

Absolutely. And that's why I hope something is done about this incredible deficit we are in right now. That's probably half the reason Bush has cut many things...we're so far in debt that he's trying to save money.

Proof that we are in it for oil:

WoMD - if we were concerned about them we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. No intelligence suggested they had any, and there are plenty of other countries that do have them.

Liberate Iraqi People: not in the slightest. We didn't even help the Jews in WWII, we haven't gotten that much more benevolent since then (quite the opposite in my opinion). There's gotta be something in it for us, hence oil.

Get Saddam Out: This is indeed a side goal, but once again, no proof Saddam was a threat. Iraq had no intercontinental missiles that could reach us, that was known last spring, according to NPR, and now no weapons. Plus he was willing to negotiate. While Saddam is a horrible person, a preemptive strike was not the solution to get him out for the costs encountered, and is simply now a reason that many give as an excuse for the war.

Really there aren't many more reasons for the war other than oil. Repeated a lot of stuff to state my point, once again comes down to what you believe in.

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh in my last post. Easy to get fired up talking about politics :) . This is a great debate though. This is my last post for the night, I'll check again, and make some replys if there's stuff to reply to tomorrow.

In terms of WMD's it would have essentially been smarter to go after North Korea but perhaps we DID go after the weaker country because we weren't ready to go after N. Korea. So I do agree with Will and everyone on that part.

We did help the Iraqi's, although some of them hate our guts its only a mere 20% of the population, and most of them were Saddam Hussein supporters. There is a noticably bigger amount of people who are really excited about the new government and are even wanting to nominate, peaceful and powerful people in their community to rebuild a better Iraq. This was in a special on a channel like PBS, WHYY (lol Why?) or something along the lines of that. The american haters claim to be in a "Army Of God" while the american supporters, are eager to rebuild a stronger and more peaceful Iraq.

We screwed up in making attacks before invading, because it made us have major backlash from some of the media across the world. I do agree that we should have ran in first rather then attack by air, but that's all a part of winning against the enemy. Weaken their reinforcements, then charge.

As for Will? Yes we are scared. We aren't prepared enough to go into North Korea yet, and we wont go in until we know we can.

Shade

02-13-2004, 04:12 PM

But then there are news sources out there enticing people to be liberals . It's all a matter of who you'd like to be, and personally I don't want to be a liberal, so I choose to follow Fox News and CNN and etc.

Most certainly there are. However, there are news sources which are less biased, ie. NPR & PBS. Quoting what comes off of fox news is rarely unbiased, and can even be completely untrue.

There are biases on both sides, however it is easily proven that there is far more conservative bias in the mainstream than liberal (see Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them). Fox news is basically the leading conservative network, and is therefore not very reliable.

Which will hurt him in the next election when it comes time for a new president to be decided. People who want to live in a safe world in 20 years will turn their faces away from Bush. However, the favorite "John Kerry" isn't so much of a good guy either, considering he was caught spreading lies about Bush over the internet and is planning to increase our military considerably. (Aka, sending a greater amount of men to be killed in each war).

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of Kerry. I much prefer Dean or Clark over Kerry. But in my mind, anybody is better than Bush, more or less. More military spending also doesn't necessarily equate to more soldiers being sent to Iraq. It is probably being done to make up for the massive military spending cuts Bush has put in place such as: no health care for reservists, less pay etc.

Absolutely. And that's why I hope something is done about this incredible deficit we are in right now. That's probably half the reason Bush has cut many things...we're so far in debt that he's trying to save money.

Understood, and it's almost a moot point to complain about this anymore, since its already done, but my problem isn't with the deficit itself. It's the with where the deficit came from, mostly from the tax cuts and the war. Since I don't support the war, and the tax cuts benefited the wealthy elite, this deficit isn't too pleasing to me. The fact is, Bush took a multi-trillion dollar surplus and turned it into the worst deficit ever, lost 2 million jobs, and sent our economy into a downward spiral. I can't say there's a way out of the deficit without cutting spending to these programs, I'm don't understand national economy well enough to know where to start, but it sure isn't pleasing to see so many valuable programs being cut.

We did help the Iraqi's, although some of them hate our guts its only a mere 20% of the population, and most of them were Saddam Hussein supporters.

I have trouble believing that only 20% of the population is against us. Is there a source for that? Also the belief that they are Saddam Hussein supporters is a little unbelievable also, not too many people liked Saddam Hussein, the people that dislike his way outnumber them. Many of the people doing the suicide bombings and such are likely also those who have lost their entire families due to bombs, or lack of medical/food/power supply due to the bombs.

I don't just think we should have invaded instead of bombing. Negotiations were still an option. We closed that option and decided to preemtively go to war instead, turning our backs on most of the the other major (and minor) countries of the world. That's the main problem.

At least we're finding some common ground now :)

Derek The Infamous

02-13-2004, 04:38 PM

Most certainly there are. However, there are news sources which are less biased, ie. NPR & PBS. Quoting what comes off of fox news is rarely unbiased, and can even be completely untrue.

Hence why I love PBS. Their reports from beyond enemy lines are the most true and informative out of any news station out there.

I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of Kerry. I much prefer Dean or Clark over Kerry. But in my mind, anybody is better than Bush, more or less. More military spending also doesn't necessarily equate to more soldiers being sent to Iraq. It is probably being done to make up for the massive military spending cuts Bush has put in place such as: no health care for reservists, less pay etc.

I vote for Clark too. Besides, he doesn't think Outkast broke up..he thinks they simply went on to do solo projects. (I'm not kidding).

Understood, and it's almost a moot point to complain about this anymore, since its already done, but my problem isn't with the deficit itself. It's the with where the deficit came from, mostly from the tax cuts and the war. Since I don't support the war, and the tax cuts benefited the wealthy elite, this deficit isn't too pleasing to me. The fact is, Bush took a multi-trillion dollar surplus and turned it into the worst deficit ever, lost 2 million jobs, and sent our economy into a downward spiral. I can't say there's a way out of the deficit without cutting spending to these programs, I'm don't understand national economy well enough to know where to start, but it sure isn't pleasing to see so many valuable programs being cut.

Yes the best way to handle this is just to say that we really f*cked up on the whole budget. We spent too much too soon and now we're suffering because of it.

I have trouble believing that only 20% of the population is against us. Is there a source for that? Also the belief that they are Saddam Hussein supporters is a little unbelievable also, not too many people liked Saddam Hussein, the people that dislike his way outnumber them. Many of the people doing the suicide bombings and such are likely also those who have lost their entire families due to bombs, or lack of medical/food/power supply due to the bombs.

I don't just think we should have invaded instead of bombing. Negotiations were still an option. We closed that option and decided to preemtively go to war instead, turning our backs on most of the the other major (and minor) countries of the world. That's the main problem.

At least we're finding some common ground now :)

I got the 20% thing from WHYY, my dad was watching it and he told me what I missed while I was too busy debating. :lol:

I do agree that by bombing we made many people bitter, and I can even agree that we are getting common ground because some of the bombers could very well be people who just...never really liked America and hate them even more now.

Todd

02-13-2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes

Radical Dreamer

02-13-2004, 10:01 PM

I'm not a US citizen either, but I don't support the war in any way. The present government is extremely f##ked up and I doubt things will change unless the next election yields a different president (hopefully, John Kerry). Iraq obviously had no weapons of mass destruction because otherwise, Bush would never have gone to war with them. With WMDs in hand, Saddam could easily have nuked America in one minute flat and I don't think the US would risk that. That's why they're trying to negotiate with North Korea instead of resorting to military action. And I think what Will said is right. The US was scared to take on North Korea because THEY were the ones with the real WMDs. Now reverse the psychology and what do you get? The US weren't afraid to invade Iraq because they knew very well Saddam had no real WMDs. None that's serious enough to do them much harm, anyway. WMDs was always the pretext for war. Weapon inspectors have searched and found nothing and to this day, Bush is still contradicting himself. His story changes day by day - one minute he says "we thought they were capable of developing WMDs" and the next, it changes to "we knew they had WMDs". Obviously, they're lying somewhere. Even if the war is not about oil, it's related to oil. Think about it - the government says oil is not the issue but remember which 5 big companies were given the contracts to rebuild Iraq? One of them was Halliburton, the same company that's responsible for financing Ricard Cheney.

In some way, the war would've been necessary to get rid of Saddam and I can't say I entirely regret the outcome - he's gone and that's a good thing. I just think the US could've lessened their aggression. Saddam was pretty much helpless and Iraq isn't exactly a military giant so there was no need to drop so many destructive missiles and bombs on the country. Reducing their military aggression could've prevented more innocent civilians from dying. Now, even though the people are rid of a dictator, the whole of Iraq and its infrastructure is completely shattered and it'll take years to rebuild the country, both socially and politically.

Anthony.

02-13-2004, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Todd+Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes [/b][/quote]
Peaceful :mellow: :o .

Take a look at that (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)

Globalsecurity.org is a very credible military source :D . You'll see it wasn't so far away of war...

Shade

02-14-2004, 02:23 AM

I think I've pretty well argued my point, and have been argued well against too. Unless I can think of anything else to add, I'm done posting in this thread. Thanks for the debate all, especially Derek, its been fun.

Derek The Infamous

02-14-2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Shade@Feb 13 2004, 10:23 PM
I think I've pretty well argued my point, and have been argued well against too. Unless I can think of anything else to add, I'm done posting in this thread. Thanks for the debate all, especially Derek, its been fun.
Yes, and that site proves that America is indeed handling North Korea, unlike what we previously thought. They are just doing it quietly and from the way it seems (by N. Korea allowing us to investigate) peacefully.

The debate was extremely fun but now it appears we have no more to debate about so, thank you guys for your intelligent comments and thoughts. It really was one of the best debates I've ever taken a part in.

Phantom Duck

02-14-2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Avenger+Feb 13 2004, 11:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Avenger @ Feb 13 2004, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes
Peaceful :mellow: :o .

Take a look at that (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)

Globalsecurity.org is a very credible military source :D . You'll see it wasn't so far away of war... [/b][/quote]
Dude, i can make a site that has a "time before Bush decides to blow the planet up: 10000000000days", but it proves nothing.

Plus the facilities NK has too make nukes are nothing compared to US ones.

Todd

02-14-2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Avenger+Feb 13 2004, 05:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Avenger @ Feb 13 2004, 05:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes
Peaceful :mellow: :o .

Take a look at that (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)

Globalsecurity.org is a very credible military source :D . You'll see it wasn't so far away of war... [/b][/quote]
I said I wouldn't call relations peaceful. Read the post before you reply. But as of right now, the relationship between NK and the US seems to be that as long as we don't piss them off, they won't bother with us, which is why we shouldn't go to war with them

Mark

02-14-2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Todd+Feb 14 2004, 12:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Feb 14 2004, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Avenger@Feb 13 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by -Todd@Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes
Peaceful :mellow: :o .

Take a look at that (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)

Globalsecurity.org is a very credible military source :D . You'll see it wasn't so far away of war...
I said I wouldn't call relations peaceful. Read the post before you reply. But as of right now, the relationship between NK and the US seems to be that as long as we don't piss them off, they won't bother with us, which is why we shouldn't go to war with them [/b][/quote]
Yes, they shouldn't unless they are actually going to attack. But Bush has doen it before when there's no apparent threat. Of course people (like Saddam and Kim) are going to hate the US, but don't bomb them unless they come out and declare war.

Anthony.

02-14-2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Todd+Feb 14 2004, 10:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Feb 14 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Avenger@Feb 13 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by -Todd@Feb 13 2004, 05:00 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Will@Feb 13 2004, 12:20 AM
If he truly wanted to go after his so-called "Axis of Evil," he would've went after North Korea first to take the most powerful of the "Axis" out first. But he didn't. Why? Because the US is afraid.

That's about all I'm going to say.
That, and there's no need to go after Korea. I wouldn't exactly call relations between the US and NK peaceful, but they're not violent either. North Korea seems to be one of those countries that has nukes, likes having them, and won't stop making them, but, as long as no one pisses them off, they won't use the nukes. Much like Iraq would be if they had the WMDs to begin with. So if Bush completley ignores the fact that NK has nukes, we're fine. It's just if Bush starts attacking them, they wont be afraid to use the nukes
Peaceful :mellow: :o .

Take a look at that (http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)

Globalsecurity.org is a very credible military source :D . You'll see it wasn't so far away of war...
I said I wouldn't call relations peaceful. Read the post before you reply. But as of right now, the relationship between NK and the US seems to be that as long as we don't piss them off, they won't bother with us, which is why we shouldn't go to war with them [/b][/quote]
Oops, yep I didn't read it well :D . But anyway, this website is a good source of information about the conflict so I'd have posted it anyway :D . Sorry for the misunderstanding.