"The United States of America has gone man"

[Ian]

Interesting Article. Any thoughts?


The United States of America has gone mad
John le Carré

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil -- but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day - think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.

"But will we win, Daddy?"

"Of course, child. It will all be over while you're still in bed."

"Why?"

"Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him."

"But will people be killed, Daddy?"

"Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people."

"Can I watch it on television?"

"Only if Mr Bush says you can."

"And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?"

"Hush child, and go to sleep."

Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: "Peace is also Patriotic". It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping.

[Brian Damage]

Peace is not an option right now. War sucks, but is sometimes a necessary evil. War has given us freedom and has protected our freedom. I support my President and what my country decides to do. patriot:

[Kitt]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
Peace is not an option right now. War sucks, but is sometimes a necessary evil. War has given us freedom and has protected our freedom. I support my President and what my country decides to do. patriot: You are 'your country'. When did you stop thinking that you weren't? And your country is a part of a larger civilization which is totally unconvinced that this war at this time is necessary...evil or otherwise. We the people are our country. The President is only one person--one representive of our country. When this, or any president, puts out information - as he will tonight- that is supposed to make a case for going to war I want to know from where this information came from and if it's true. Killing untold amounts of people, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars is bad enough knowing the why and the wherefore of it, but it's unthinkable without knowing the why and wherefore of it.

[TJL]

I'm curious about something, Kittflynn...

If the President provides us with "information" that is truthful, and reliable, and as you say "makes a case for going to war," then will we all accept his decision to go to war, or will people continue to argue against the war instead of accepting The President's decision?

The President is "one representative" of our Country. But he is our leader, whom I voted for, and the majority of this nation voted for, and I intend to stand behind his beliefs.

[Georgia's on my Mind]

If war comes, I am moving to Mexico....

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by kittflynn
You are 'your country'. When did you stop thinking that you weren't? And your country is a part of a larger civilization which is totally unconvinced that this war at this time is necessary...evil or otherwise. We the people are our country. The President is only one person--one representive of our country. When this, or any president, puts out information - as he will tonight- that is supposed to make a case for going to war I want to know from where this information came from and if it's true. Killing untold amounts of people, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars is bad enough knowing the why and the wherefore of it, but it's unthinkable without knowing the why and wherefore of it.

I don't care what other countries think. I care what mine does and if there is proof that Sadam is lying, then I support him and his decision. Peace can be taken advantage of very easily. It already has with the 9/11 attacks. I proudly served my country in the Persian Gulf once and would be happy to do it again.

[Ian]

Originally posted by Brian Damage


I don't care what other countries think. I care what mine does and if there is proof that Sadam is lying, then I support him and his decision. Peace can be taken advantage of very easily. It already has with the 9/11 attacks. I proudly served my country in the Persian Gulf once and would be happy to do it again.

You see that's the problem...we don't listen to other countries. The United States is one country, of many, on earth. In order to keep peace, we have to work with other countries! WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNRTY ON EARTH!!!!

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
I'm curious about something, Kittflynn...

If the President provides us with "information" that is truthful, and reliable, and as you say "makes a case for going to war," then will we all accept his decision to go to war, or will people continue to argue against the war instead of accepting The President's decision?

The President is "one representative" of our Country. But he is our leader, whom I voted for, and the majority of this nation voted for, and I intend to stand behind his beliefs. Your first question is rhetorical. If it ever comes close to meaningful, I'll answer it.

Your statement, "the majority of this nation voted for [Bush]" is just wrong. The majority of this nation didn't vote for Bush. And now the majority of this nation disagrees with his argument regarding war on Iraq.

[Brian Damage]

There are plenty of countries that support us. Please don't make it seem that we're alone in this because we're not. What about when other countries refuse to keep peace. Then what? What are we supposed to do ignore them? Let them create weapons of mass destruction? Let them kill innocent people? I for one am not ashamed for serving my country and protecting the freedoms which people seriously take advantage of.

[TJL]

Why won't you answer my question?
If there is proof that Iraq has weapons that pose a threat to the world, can we take steps to prevent them from using them?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
Why won't you answer my question?
If there is proof that Iraq has weapons that pose a threat to the world, can we take steps to prevent them from using them? What exactly is your question? Is it, does Iraq have weapons? Is it, does Iraq pose a threat to the world? Is it, is Iraq affiliated with Al-qaida? Is it, was Iraq responsible for the bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? If your question is, does Iraq have the capability to make weapons, such as those who already have-- Pakistan, India, Russia, North Korea, China, Japan, and Timbuktoo, then, my answer is no, I wouldn't sanction the slaughter of the population of Iraq just for that reason. Otherwise, we'd be busy taking out country after country just because they "Pose a theat". There are ways of dealing with a threat other than annihilation, and declaring ourselves King of the world. So if your question is can we "take steps"? Thenmy answer is that we, and the international community, are taking steps. Inspections, agreed upon by the international community, are underway. Why the hell can't we allow that to proceed without constantly raising cane? Bush went to speak to the international community, for what purpose? Just for show? They've spoken. He can't take yes for an answer?

[TJL]

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

You oppose a war, I don't.

[Brian Damage]

Sadam is one step ahead of the inspectors. If Bush has sufficient evidence to believe they have weapons, then something needs to be done. Hey I own the Brooklyn Bridge too, would you like to buy it?

[Ian]

We have weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean everyone has a right to bomb us????

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

You oppose a war, I don't. "War". What? Is that All wars that you don't oppose? Are they all the same? Makes no difference what brought them about?

It's ironical to me that someone who is a big fan of Mash would have such an easy going attitude about war. The movie "Mash" came about due to what a monstrosity the Vietnam war was. The TV show dealt with both the Vietman war indirectly and the Korean war, which was of course the war that the show was actually about. The whole premise of the show was that politicians made war, not people. People just suffered as a consequence of the decisions that politicians made--in the name of the people.

[Kitt]

Brian--You said there are plenty of countries that support us. No, there aren't. You said that "something needs to be done". Fine! There are other answers this side of war. I posted an article awhile back. It layed out some answers. Part of it was to go after Saddam Hussien for war crimes. That's something the whole world community would get behind. In which case success could be achieved without the slaughter of innocents. We think we're so damn tough but we'd be a whole lot tougher if we we're in cahoots with the rest of the world all on the same page.

Who Am I to Question the Commander-in-Chief?

By Charles Sheehan-Miles,

It was early in the morning, even for me, and I stared astonished at my inbox, replete with some pretty strong hate mail, with three general themes: "Shut up and toe the line," "Nuke Iraq," and worst of all, "Who are you to question the President?"
What did I do to warrant this flood of not-so-nice mail, which included threats of bodily harm, as well as some biologically implausible suggestions?

Last week a group of Gulf War veterans <http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org> formed a team to raise questions about our impending invasion of Iraq. Together, we agreed on some basic principles, none of which was "anti-war." Rather, our goal is to ensure before we commit our forces to war, we consider all the key issues.

Those issues are simple: whether or not the invasion will destabilize the region; full medical care for returning soldiers (which never happened in 1991); the Bush administration should release any information justifying an attack; Congress is the body that should approve any war and ensure adequate oversight; we should meet our international obligations, including working through the UN Security Council, and a full accounting must be made for those who are missing-in-action.

In the first 24 hours after we announced our site, quite a few veterans signed on to the statement. But a small minority sent hate mail. To give you an idea of the tone, I'll quote three of them:

"Get over your-stupid-selves. Dumbass Liberal pussies."
"I say turn the place into glass!"

"Where in God's name did you ever get the idea to countermand the commander-in-chief of our nation?"

Okay. I have to take exception to this. Let's make one thing clear – George W. Bush is indeed the commander-in-chief of the military; but last I heard, the President works for the people, not the other way around – even if they didn't vote for him.

Since when did patriotism equal silence? Did that happen about the same time peace activists were added to the "no-fly" list? Will we let the terror war, or the Iraq war, or the oil war, or whoever it is we're fighting this week destroy the very foundations of our democracy?

It's time for people to sit up and pay attention. We've reached a turning point in history, where Americans say they'll cash in their freedom and liberty for security. We defeated communism and dictatorship, so now we'll try capitalism and dictatorship?

Unless we all speak out, we just might. Because the tenor of the debate is exactly what President Bush said: If you're not with us, you are against us. If you don't support war on Iraq, you must be Saddam's best friend. If you don't support "turning the place into glass," you must be anti-American. If you don't support slaughtering innocent civilians abroad, you must support terror against Americans at home.

I'm a combat veteran, and I reject that argument. If we give up the civil liberties on which our society was founded, then what are we fighting for? If we trade in our brains for the spin of the oil-company-controlled White House, we're in trouble.

But then again, if I believe what I read in my inbox, I'm just a radical with a liberal left-wing nut, anti-everything agenda.
Charles Sheehan-Miles <http://www.sheehanmiles.com>, a decorated Gulf War combat veteran, is the author of "Prayer at Rumayla" (XLibris, 2001) and a former president of the National Gulf War Resource Center.

[TJL]

Please, don't lecture me on the politics of M*A*S*H.
I am fully aware of what the show is about. I guess using the avatar of avowed pacafist Hawkeye Pierce is a serios contrast to my political views. I guess that's what makes me unique...

And don't assume that I have an "easygoing" attitude about war, whether it be USA vs. Iraq, us vs. them, whatever. I am aware of the destruction that such matters can cause. I live a few miles away from ground zero after all. Some friends and relatives are buried there.

I happen to believe that the decisions made by President Bush will be the right ones.
People will suffer, whatever decisions will or will not be made by the politicians. We do nothing, Saddam continues to slaughter and opress his people.
If we can force a man like Sadam Hussain out of power, I am willing to support whatever measures President Bush is willing to take.

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
Please, don't lecture me on the politics of M*A*S*H.
I am fully aware of what the show is about. I guess using the avatar of avowed pacafist Hawkeye Pierce is a serios contrast to my political views. I guess that's what makes me unique...

And don't assume that I have an "easygoing" attitude about war, whether it be USA vs. Iraq, us vs. them, whatever. I am aware of the destruction that such matters can cause. I live a few miles away from ground zero after all. Some friends and relatives are buried there.

I happen to believe that the decisions made by President Bush will be the right ones.
People will suffer, whatever decisions will or will not be made by the politicians. We do nothing, Saddam continues to slaughter and opress his people.
If we can force a man like Sadam Hussain out of power, I am willing to support whatever measures President Bush is willing to take. It wasn't a lecture. You asked a serious question of me. I answered in a serious way. You replied in a flippant way. You got my reply to your flippant answer.

[TJL]

I was flippant? You said my first question wasn't "meaningful."

What kind of attitude is that?

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
I was flippant? You said my first question wasn't "meaningful."

What kind of attitude is that? Yes, you were flippant. And in the first instance, you asked a rhetorical question--no substance or meaning to it that I could surmise. I don't know what you mean by "what kind of attitude is that?" I answered your questions and replied to them in accordance to what you seemed to be saying.

[TJL]

The question seemed pretty clear to me.

Whatever, I asked a question, you chose to pick apart how I asked it. If you didn't want to answer it, then you didn't have to.
Continue ramming your opinions down everyone's throats instead of listenting to the thoughts of others. I'm done.

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by JOHN LENNON LIVES
We have weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean everyone has a right to bomb us????

What did we do to deserve 9/11? What did my cousin ever do to die that day? Saddam Hussein is a mad man. You keep on preaching about peace till the day your gasping for breath from a chemical weapons attack. I for one want to prevent that from happening. I appreciate my freedom and I am damn proud of all the men and women who sacrificed their lives for it. This is by far the greatest country in the world and will not take it for granted like some obviously do. Nobody wants war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. To me, this is necessary. Instead of complaining about what's wrong with this country, have the guts and try serving it.

[Mossopp]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
Peace is not an option right now. War sucks, but is sometimes a necessary evil. War has given us freedom and has protected our freedom. I support my President and what my country decides to do. patriot:

Peace is always an option!
For God's sake! You all need to stop your collective flag-waving and wake up! There is absolutely no need for a war!!! Your President is a total wanker - he'd have us all dead!! He doesn't think - if he did he'd see the absurdity of all this pro-war $*!* he's constantly shoving down your throats!
I think - in the wake of September 11th - you Americans are all deathly afraid of being seen as un-patriotic. It's not a crime to disagree with President Bush and if you do disagree with him it doesn't make you a traitor to your country. All it means is that you are a free-thinking individual who can see things objectively.
If you are pro-war I can guarantee you that, if war does actually go ahead, you'll all be so sorry for voting that **** as president!

[Kitt]

Originally posted by TJL
The question seemed pretty clear to me.

Whatever, I asked a question, you chose to pick apart how I asked it. If you didn't want to answer it, then you didn't have to.
Continue ramming your opinions down everyone's throats instead of listenting to the thoughts of others. I'm done. I've written 2 or 3 diplomatic replies to what you write there. But really, since I'm not getting paid for this, 'Up yours' seemed to be the most appropriate reply. So that's my story and I'm sticking with it!

But if you'd care to read an opinion that is quite similar to mine, but might hold more weight with you, how about General Norman Schwartzkopf?

[TAMPA--Norman Schwarzkopf wants to give peace a chance.

The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq.

And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In fact, the hero of the last Gulf War sounds surprisingly like the man on the street when he discusses his ambivalence about the Bush administration's hawkish stance on ousting Saddam Hussein. He worries about the Iraqi leader, but would like to see some persuasive evidence of Iraq's alleged weapons programs.]

[UpstairsSteak]

Originally posted by Brian Damage


What did we do to deserve 9/11? What did my cousin ever do to die that day? Saddam Hussein is a mad man. You keep on preaching about peace till the day your gasping for breath from a chemical weapons attack. I for one want to prevent that from happening. I appreciate my freedom and I am damn proud of all the men and women who sacrificed their lives for it. This is by far the greatest country in the world and will not take it for granted like some obviously do. Nobody wants war, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. To me, this is necessary. Instead of complaining about what's wrong with this country, have the guts and try serving it.
Way to go, Brian!!!! You've actually walked the walk, unlike most of us here, so you alone can appreciate what the reality of war is. I support our President and our troops 100%, I don't pretend that I could make the decisions that Bush has to make. Of course I don't want war but the US is in a very unenviable position - we are the peacekeepers of the world. We feed the world and provide medical supplies to the world - of course I'd love to say keep the money for our country and screw everyone else, but we can't. Bush had it right on target last night, if we don't do something now we'll find out the hard way what kind of weapons Saddam has - when they are used against the US.
Mossopp, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're from a country that's about as big as one of our states but you've used the "you Americans" phrase in many posts. This is a country of incredible diversity where very few stereotypes apply. Let's not forget what the US has done for the rest of the world time and time again.

[Max Whittaker]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
This is so stupid! Why can't more Americans see that Bush is trying cause utter kaos! He arrogance I can't see id "victory" that everyone keeps talking about! How long do you think our military can stay strong if we keep attaking every country that posses a hint of a threat to our all-rightious President?? How long until the world falls into anouther World War becaus of all the BS we have let continue? :mad: I hate where we are going with this!!!


Wake up!

[fr00ti]

Screw peace and all the freaking hippies. Blow up Saddam Hussaines crazy ass. Rock on Bush. I watched his State Of The Union address last night, it was brilliant. Better than anything Bill ever did. Bush is the best prez weve ever had, and thank god we got that stupid ass Bill Clinton out of office before he killed us all. And Im sick of the god damn losers who walk theyre lame asses all over the capital and say all this crap about world peace. Get the hell over it and stop smoking youre joints and saying how much you hate Bush. Oh yeah BTW thats JMO. And most of you people probably wont like it. I lived in the land of hippies and losers... the SF Bay area. God I can only take so much of that crap before I just lose it.

[Ian]

Ok, Ok...I'M READY...YEAH, LET'S DO THIS THING. SCREW THOSE IRAQI PEOPLE, IF THEY KNEW ANYTHING THEY WOULDN'T BE LIVING IN IRAQ!! LET'S BOMB THOSE MO'FOS INTO DUST!!

Is that what you want to hear??? War doesn't solve ANYTHING, it only creates new problems.

Oh, Mossopp, I agree 100%!

[Czas na Zywiec]

Originally posted by Brian Damage


What did we do to deserve 9/11? What did my cousin ever do to die that day? Saddam Hussein is a mad man.

Did Saddam Hussein bomb the US on 9/11? Most of the terrorists that bombed the US that day were from Saudi Arabia and working for Al-Quieda (sp?) in Aphganistan. Iraq didn't instruct the airplans to hit the WTC. The only reason Bush wants Saddam out of power is so we can take advantage of the region' rich oil supply. There are tons of threats out there to the US, such as North Korea, but why doen't Bush send troops to fight North Korea to disarm them? I'm not supporting Saddam in any way, and I'm also not trying to let Saddam off scott free, but I do think that peace is an option here.

Just my thoughts.

[Czas na Zywiec]

Originally posted by MaRtInA_GuRL
Screw peace and all the freaking hippies. Blow up Saddam Hussaines crazy ass. Rock on Bush. I watched his State Of The Union address last night, it was brilliant. Better than anything Bill ever did. Bush is the best prez weve ever had, and thank god we got that stupid ass Bill Clinton out of office before he killed us all. And Im sick of the god damn losers who walk theyre lame asses all over the capital and say all this crap about world peace. Get the hell over it and stop smoking youre joints and saying how much you hate Bush. Oh yeah BTW thats JMO. And most of you people probably wont like it. I lived in the land of hippies and losers... the SF Bay area. God I can only take so much of that crap before I just lose it.

Oh then I suppose that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and others were just looking for the fame and glamour of being recognized.

Does America have to nuke out every country that has a treat to us? If that's true, then we'd have a lot more on the list than Iraq to get rid of for this so called peace that Bush wants.

[White_Daisy]

Originally posted by MaRtInA_GuRL
Screw peace and all the freaking hippies. Blow up Saddam Hussaines crazy ass. Rock on Bush. I watched his State Of The Union address last night, it was brilliant. Better than anything Bill ever did. Bush is the best prez weve ever had, and thank god we got that stupid ass Bill Clinton out of office before he killed us all. And Im sick of the god damn losers who walk theyre lame asses all over the capital and say all this crap about world peace. Get the hell over it and stop smoking youre joints and saying how much you hate Bush. Oh yeah BTW thats JMO. And most of you people probably wont like it. I lived in the land of hippies and losers... the SF Bay area. God I can only take so much of that crap before I just lose it.

It's not a question of peace, it's a question of death. It may be hard to kill Hussein, but it's harder to do it in public. If the easily accesible newspapers are spinning off headlines like, "Bush vows to kill Hussein." I don't think Saddam is going for his morning walk anymore. Private assasinations are easier...

Oh and about Bill Clinton and killing us all. Funny, I don't seem to remember impending war with multiple major weapon holding countries when Clinton was the president.

World peace is impossible, but there's no need to rush closer to war. Hussein is a threat, I am not denying that. So is North Korea. There are, however, better options to war. I'm not a peace advocate, I advocate negotiations. If that doesn't work, well obviously then there's gonna be some trouble.

No offense, but if all of us had your attitude, America wouldn't live a moment longer before every nuclear power in the world decided to bomb it. Nuclear war is what we are trying to avoid. Which is why Bush better start dealing with North Korea.

And I sure did love his speech last night :rolleyes:
Especially this one, "Your enemy is not surrounding you, Your enemy is ruling you."
Is that before or after we throw bombs at elementary schools ("whoops that was an elementary school? Funny, I thought it was a plastics factory")

Incidently, I don't do drugs

[Mossopp]

Originally posted by UpstairsSteak

Mossopp, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're from a country that's about as big as one of our states but you've used the "you Americans" phrase in many posts. This is a country of incredible diversity where very few stereotypes apply. Let's not forget what the US has done for the rest of the world time and time again.

Whatever the US "has done for the rest of the world" they've done by sheer brute force. The US is the most powerful country in the world and if your president - whoever that happens to be at the time - wants to do something then he'll just go ahead and f**king well do it, despite protests from any other country!!
And what the hell do you mean you'll "give me the benefit of the doubt"? I dunno what you actually meant by that but it sounded like, since I'm not American, I wouldn't known any better! I sure as hell hope that's not what you meant!
Did you hear Saddam's son on the news at the beginning of the week? He said that if Bush wanted a war then he'd better be prepared for all-out destruction that would "make September 11 look like a joke". Is that what you want??? REALLY???
All you pro-war people have no idea what you're letting yourselves in for - what you're letting the world in for!!!
If ignorance is bliss you guys must be the happiest f**kers in the world!

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by Original Prankster


Did Saddam Hussein bomb the US on 9/11? Most of the terrorists that bombed the US that day were from Saudi Arabia and working for Al-Quieda (sp?) in Aphganistan. Iraq didn't instruct the airplans to hit the WTC.

No Saddam didn't bomb the US, but there are links to him and Osama Bin Laden. There are links to him harbouring terrorists and paying them off. This isn't so much about Iraq have nuclear weapons, it's about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons.

[fr00ti]

Originally posted by White_Daisy


It's not a question of peace, it's a question of death. It may be hard to kill Hussein, but it's harder to do it in public. If the easily accesible newspapers are spinning off headlines like, "Bush vows to kill Hussein." I don't think Saddam is going for his morning walk anymore. Private assasinations are easier...

Oh and about Bill Clinton and killing us all. Funny, I don't seem to remember impending war with multiple major weapon holding countries when Clinton was the president.

World peace is impossible, but there's no need to rush closer to war. Hussein is a threat, I am not denying that. So is North Korea. There are, however, better options to war. I'm not a peace advocate, I advocate negotiations. If that doesn't work, well obviously then there's gonna be some trouble.

No offense, but if all of us had your attitude, America wouldn't live a moment longer before every nuclear power in the world decided to bomb it. Nuclear war is what we are trying to avoid. Which is why Bush better start dealing with North Korea.

And I sure did love his speech last night :rolleyes:
Especially this one, "Your enemy is not surrounding you, Your enemy is ruling you."
Is that before or after we throw bombs at elementary schools ("whoops that was an elementary school? Funny, I thought it was a plastics factory")

Incidently, I don't do drugs

hey, cool it dude... its alright man.... im a compassionate conservative. ;)

[White_Daisy]

Originally posted by MaRtInA_GuRL


hey, cool it dude... its alright man.... im a compassionate conservative. ;)

Sorry, going through my last-midterms-tomorrow rut. I'm cool now, I have put down the Physics book.

Good to know you're compassionate. I hate it when I meet conservatives who just get into your face about everything. Then again, I hate liberals who do that too.

Just another note to the war, everyone's been talking about are we or are we not going to war, but what'll happen in the war. The devestation that that region will face will be immense. And I suppose, as usual, we will clear out within a few years leaving a vulnerable country behind.

Look, I come from a currently war-torn area, the reason we moved was because of that. I was a kid, but I still remember my mother telling me never to go down the path by the lake, and if I do, I will be hurt so badly....then she'd get all teary and say, "but not by me." Years later, I found out that barely a few NYC blocks from where I grew up, was a rape camp.

Women in the area would be taken there and be raped by troops. Virginity and honor is everything to these women and to have that happen to them... These weren't blood-thirsty savages. These were American troops. I remember seeing them in my town...and getting so angry at them for daring to step foot into the mosque with their shoes on. They'd disrespect everything. One gallantly gave me a piece of candy when he marched into town, but I wondered what I was going to do with that candy when I had a good meal waiting at home.

My parents, understandably, have a hatred of soldiers. My grandparents still have seizures when they see one. I grew up in a generation that saw what was going on, but didn't understand it. I'm happy my parents moved and I find it ironic that after running from American troops, we come to America. Maybe we shouldn't have run, but I was entering middle school. And these pigs would rape every girl, they would disrespect so much. They wrote graffiti on the walls of the mosque. And we were expected to think they'd save us? Our troops were much more well-behaved. At least they'd pay their respects to the elders, they'd take off their shoes before entering our holy place.

I know not all American troops are like that and I know some of you have even served in the army. But I speak from experience as well. My parents would have a few things to say about this topic.

[bandito]

Originally posted by White_Daisy


Sorry, going through my last-midterms-tomorrow rut. I'm cool now, I have put down the Physics book.

Good to know you're compassionate. I hate it when I meet conservatives who just get into your face about everything. Then again, I hate liberals who do that too.

Just another note to the war, everyone's been talking about are we or are we not going to war, but what'll happen in the war. The devestation that that region will face will be immense. And I suppose, as usual, we will clear out within a few years leaving a vulnerable country behind.

Look, I come from a currently war-torn area, the reason we moved was because of that. I was a kid, but I still remember my mother telling me never to go down the path by the lake, and if I do, I will be hurt so badly....then she'd get all teary and say, "but not by me." Years later, I found out that barely a few NYC blocks from where I grew up, was a rape camp.

Women in the area would be taken there and be raped by troops. Virginity and honor is everything to these women and to have that happen to them... These weren't blood-thirsty savages. These were American troops. I remember seeing them in my town...and getting so angry at them for daring to step foot into the mosque with their shoes on. They'd disrespect everything. One gallantly gave me a piece of candy when he marched into town, but I wondered what I was going to do with that candy when I had a good meal waiting at home.

My parents, understandably, have a hatred of soldiers. My grandparents still have seizures when they see one. I grew up in a generation that saw what was going on, but didn't understand it. I'm happy my parents moved and I find it ironic that after running from American troops, we come to America. Maybe we shouldn't have run, but I was entering middle school. And these pigs would rape every girl, they would disrespect so much. They wrote graffiti on the walls of the mosque. And we were expected to think they'd save us? Our troops were much more well-behaved. At least they'd pay their respects to the elders, they'd take off their shoes before entering our holy place.

I know not all American troops are like that and I know some of you have even served in the army. But I speak from experience as well. My parents would have a few things to say about this topic. White Daisy this isnt meant to be sarcastic so please dont take it that way .if your parents hate the things that americans did why did they come to this country?.. just courious.

[White_Daisy]

Originally posted by bandito
White Daisy this isnt meant to be sarcastic so please dont take it that way .if your parents hate the things that americans did why did they come to this country?.. just courious.

I wondered that myself. I asked my dad and he told me, "The only place you can go to get away from American troops is America."

They came here for the opportunities and they came here in the hope that they could safely reside her and nothing like this would ever happen again. Well, my dad turned the air blue last night during the address.

My parents don't hate this country. They don't hate all American troops. They hated the ones stationed in their home. I just don't want this happening again.

[bandito]

Originally posted by White_Daisy


I wondered that myself. I asked my dad and he told me, "The only place you can go to get away from American troops is America."

They came here for the opportunities and they came here in the hope that they could safely reside her and nothing like this would ever happen again. Well, my dad turned the air blue last night during the address.

My parents don't hate this country. They don't hate all American troops. They hated the ones stationed in their home. I just don't want this happening again. I can see why he feels that way. just goes to show you some people have no regard for other peoples feelings. crude and ignorant.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by MaRtInA_GuRL
Screw peace and all the freaking hippies. Blow up Saddam Hussaines crazy ass. Rock on Bush. I watched his State Of The Union address last night, it was brilliant. Better than anything Bill ever did. Bush is the best prez weve ever had, and thank god we got that stupid ass Bill Clinton out of office before he killed us all. And Im sick of the god damn losers who walk theyre lame asses all over the capital and say all this crap about world peace. Get the hell over it and stop smoking youre joints and saying how much you hate Bush. Oh yeah BTW thats JMO. And most of you people probably wont like it. I lived in the land of hippies and losers... the SF Bay area. God I can only take so much of that crap before I just lose it.

And some of you people on this board thought I had strong opinions!

Anyway, I agree about Clinton- he was a dangerous president. Dangerous because he did not care at all about the security of America. Clinton's State Of The Union Speeches were worthless because he very, very rarely actually delivered what he promised. He just said things to boost his ratings. Bush is very different. He says what he believes whether it helps or hurts his ratings.

[bandito]

I think he may have hurt his ratings last night. an oil man talking about hydrogen cars... give me a break. bill clinton a threat? come on.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Original Prankster
The only reason Bush wants Saddam out of power is so we can take advantage of the region' rich oil supply.

No, that's untrue. If the U.S. wants the oil supply, we certainly would have claimed at least some of Kuwait's oil wells after we liberated that country. But, we didn't. As usual, when the conflict is over, the U.S. withdrawls its troops and does not take "control" of anything- oil wells, property, land. Does anyone realize what would happen if Bush/the U.S. took over Iraq's oil? The rest of the world would be howling in protest. The U.S. just does not operate like that.

However, you are right in one respect. The reason France is not with us is because they buy billions of dollars worth of oil from Iraq. So, in a way, this is a war about oil. Not the U.S. but France.

[White_Daisy]

Originally posted by Fleet

As usual, when the conflict is over, the U.S. withdrawls its troops and does not take "control" of anything- oil wells, propery, land.

Hahaha, I'd like to challenge you on that. But unfortunately, I have a midterm tomorrow so I must go to sleep. But I'll come back and challenge it tomorrow.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by White_Daisy

Hahaha, I'd like to challenge you on that. But unfortunately, I have a midterm tomorrow so I must go to sleep. But I'll come back and challenge it tomorrow.

Okay.

[UpstairsSteak]

Originally posted by Mossopp


Whatever the US "has done for the rest of the world" they've done by sheer brute force. The US is the most powerful country in the world and if your president - whoever that happens to be at the time - wants to do something then he'll just go ahead and f**king well do it, despite protests from any other country!!
And what the hell do you mean you'll "give me the benefit of the doubt"? I dunno what you actually meant by that but it sounded like, since I'm not American, I wouldn't known any better! I sure as hell hope that's not what you meant!
Did you hear Saddam's son on the news at the beginning of the week? He said that if Bush wanted a war then he'd better be prepared for all-out destruction that would "make September 11 look like a joke". Is that what you want??? REALLY???
All you pro-war people have no idea what you're letting yourselves in for - what you're letting the world in for!!!
If ignorance is bliss you guys must be the happiest f**kers in the world!
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your using phrases such as "you Americans" and "stereotypical Americans" in many threads - writing it off to the fact that it must be hard to understand the diversity of this country not having lived here. I find the use of such phrases to be extremely offensive but was willing to ignore them because they seemed to just be naive. If you don't think it's offensive, re-read any of the posts in which you use these phrases but substitute any of the following words for Americans: Blacks, Whites, Asians, Gays.
Sounds like bigoted stereotyping to me.
I won't even address your remarks about what the US has done for the rest of the world because I'm sure you understand exactly what I'm talking about but you'd rather hide behind your own anger. Or do you really think Hitler was just a nice guy that was misunderstood, raping women and killing men and boys in Kuwait was just media hype, or using poison gas on your own people is just good planning.
My youngest brother is a marine and I worry about what's going to happen to him. I don't, however, belong to the slightly left of paranoid group that thinks Bush would go to war for no reason.

[Kitt]

41 Nobel Laureates Sign Against a War Without International Support

by William J. Broad
New York Times
Tuesday 28 January 2003

Forty-one American Nobel laureates in science and economics issued a declaration yesterday opposing a preventive war against Iraq without wide international support. The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds.

The signers, all men, include a number who at one time or another have advised the federal government or played important roles in national security. Among them are Hans A. Bethe, an architect of the atom bomb; Walter Kohn, a former adviser to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency at the Pentagon; Norman F. Ramsey, a Manhattan Project scientist who readied the Hiroshima bomb and later advised NATO; and Charles H. Townes, former research director of the Institute for Defense Analyses at the Pentagon and chairman of a federal panel that studied how to base the MX missile and its nuclear warheads.

In addition to winning Nobel prizes, 18 of the signers have received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest science honor.

The declaration reads:

"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world."

[Plata]

Originally posted by kittflynn
President Bush said: If you're not with us, you are against us. If you don't support war on Iraq, you must be Saddam's best friend. If you don't support "turning the place into glass," you must be anti-American. If you don't support slaughtering innocent civilians abroad, you must support terror against Americans at home.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. Just because we are against killing people we support terror against Americans? When will everyone wake up and think right. War is not the answer. You don't solve the problem of INNOCENT people being killed on September 11th 2001 by killing INNOCENT civilians in a war. War is just as bad as the abortion controversey. WAR AND ABORTION BOTH KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. If you are anti-abortionist and are for the war are you pro-life or anti-life? And, as far as being patriotic and for war, war isn't what I call patriotism, I call it ignorance.

[Brian Damage]

I say we leave Saddam and Iraq alone, they've done nothing wrong and even if they did we should mind our own business. If he's killing people, he's killing his people not ours. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Iraq having nuclear weapons. We should listen to France who has always been a loyal supporter of us and would never steer us wrong. I say we ignore them entirely and give peace a chance.

[Mossopp]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
I say we leave Saddam and Iraq alone, they've done nothing wrong and even if they did we should mind our own business. If he's killing people, he's killing his people not ours. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Iraq having nuclear weapons. We should listen to France who has always been a loyal supporter of us and would never steer us wrong. I say we ignore them entirely and give peace a chance.

Jesus - you've changed your tune!!!
Why the sudden change of heart?

[Brian Damage]

I was actually being sarcastic. I definitely don't feel that way, but what can I do. I hate war, I don't want war, I wish there is a better way to deal with this situation.I didn't want to be in the Persian Gulf the first time when I was there. However, I just don't see it. I just wanted to make a point of how some people sound. Whatever way we deal with it, Saddam Hussein needs to go.And I just don't think Peace is going to do that. IMO

[Jimbo]

From the London Times. Please note the signatures at the bottom of this article:



January 30, 2003

Europe and America must stand united


THE real bond between the United States and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the USA. Today they are under greater threat than ever.
The attacks of 11 September showed just how far terrorists — the enemies of our common values — are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defence of these principles, the governments and people of the United States and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

We in Europe have a relationship with the United States which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and far-sightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the United States we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime’s persistent attempts to threaten world security.

In today’s world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognised by the United Nations. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the UN route and our support for the Security Council, at the Prague Nato Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein’s last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the UN weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is continuing.

Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq’s current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
I say we leave Saddam and Iraq alone, they've done nothing wrong and even if they did we should mind our own business. If he's killing people, he's killing his people not ours. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Iraq having nuclear weapons. We should listen to France who has always been a loyal supporter of us and would never steer us wrong. I say we ignore them entirely and give peace a chance.

B.D.: I know you're being sarcastic here (by the way, I like your style!).

If you take the above paragraph, and substitute Adolph Hitler's name where "Saddam" is mentioned, and replace "Iraq" with "Germany", you will have pretty much the same argument that was used by people in this country who initially opposed America's entry into World War II. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, of course public opinion changed immediately. (I wonder where you would be today Mossop, if we had stayed out of the war).

Many who oppose action against Iraq argue that unless Iraq attacks America, we should leave them alone. I guess that means we should wait until another Pearl Harbor, or another 9/11 type mass murder of our people before we act? How many innocent American lives should be lost in an attack on our own soil before it's considered "okay to go after Saddam Hussein"?

[Mossopp]

Originally posted by Jimbo


I wonder where you would be today Mossop, if we had stayed out of the war).


Sorry to be blunt mate - but screw you!
Read some history books! America stepped into World War II at the very last minute and has been claiming credit for defeating the Germans ever since! We were fighting in that war long before you guys bothered your arses to get involved so don't even try and act like heroes!

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by JOHN LENNON LIVES


You see that's the problem...we don't listen to other countries. The United States is one country, of many, on earth. In order to keep peace, we have to work with other countries! WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNRTY ON EARTH!!!!

JLL:

I agree with you that we are not the only country on Earth, and that we should work with other countries. I wouldn't say, however, that we don't listen to other countries.

We listened to the people of West Berlin, and responded with the Berlin Air Lift when the Soviet Union tried to cut them off from the rest of the world, and force them to submit to their will.

We listened to the people of Kuwait when they cried out for help after Saddam tried to annex their country.

We have listened countless times when natural disaster struck some distant part of the world, and we rushed in with aid.

Regarding the present situation, I don't want to see our military personnel put in harm's way. I would much rather see the United Nations take decisive action to neutralize the threat that Saddam poses. We have been working with the U.N. on this all along. Our President addressed the General Assembly last fall, resulting in the latest in a whole series of U.N. resolutions against Iraq. So far, these gestures have meant nothing to Saddam Hussein. The chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, has recently noted a number of areas where he feels the Iraqis are in materiel breach of their previous agreements to disarm. Next week, Colin Powell will present still more evidence to this effect to the United Nations. After that, it will be up to the U.N. to demonstrate that they are more than just some sort of debating society, and that they intend to enforce their resolutions. I don't want war with Iraq. I want the U.N. to do their job. We are giving them every chance to do so. However, if they don't act, we must.

[Brian Damage]

No offense Mossopp, but I don't recall the mighty Scottish army taking out any Nazi stormtroopers in WWII.

[Mossopp]

Originally posted by Brian Damage
No offense Mossopp, but I don't recall the mighty Scottish army taking out any Nazi stormtroopers in WWII.

That's cos it was the BRITISH ARMY you twat!!!


No offense, of course.

[Brian Damage]

I don't recall the British asking us to stay home and refusing our help either you twit!

No offense.

[°Bubbly Blonde°]

:rotflmao: you all are arguing over ww2.......

[Brian Damage]

Originally posted by BubbleLuvGrl026
:rotflmao: you all are arguing over ww2.......

That brings me to the Revolutionary war...:D

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Mossopp

Read some history books! America stepped into World War II at the very last minute and has been claiming credit for defeating the Germans ever since!

Actually, the U.S. entered WWII on Dec. 7, 1941 and stayed until the end in Aug. 1945. That's almost 4 years; WWII is considered to have begun on Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. So the war was going on for 2 years when the U.S. joined. (Not the last minute.)

So, the 292,000 (American) battle deaths in WWII was during that 4-year period and the grand total of 16,353,659 Americans who served in WWII.

You really should not say the U.S. stepped into WWII at the last minute. First, it's extremely inaccurate and second my mom is still laughing at that statement and I can't stop her! :D

[Czas na Zywiec]

Originally posted by Fleet


Actually, the U.S. entered WWII on Dec. 7, 1941 and stayed until the end in Aug. 1945. That's almost 4 years; WWII is considered to have begun on Sept. 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. So the war was going on for 2 years when the U.S. joined. (Not the last minute.)

So, the 292,000 (American) battle deaths in WWII was during that 4-year period and the grand total of 16,353,659 Americans who served in WWII.

You really should not say the U.S. stepped into WWII at the last minute. First, it's extremely inaccurate and second my mom is still laughing at that statement and I can't stop her! :D

The US did not want to enter the war at all. If it wasn't for the Japanese invading Pearl Harbor, then the US would probably have stayed out of the war altogether. I think that Brits have a right not to help the US in this war if they don't want to since that is what the US did when the Brits asked them for help during WWII.

[bandito]

The following is an article I found very interesting:



The President in his State of the Union speech told us that Saddam has 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, (only 16 recovered) -that he has 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin (enough to subject millions of people to deathby respiratory failure) - mobile biological weapons labs that have not been destroyed.

So how is it proposed that our 150,000 man army is to protect the Mideast, let alone US soldiers from the fury of such weaponry. The president told the country that Saddam can have no motive in mind other than terror and conquest. If these weapons exist and are deployable, how are we preparing for their contingent use in war? Surely we are not dispatching our army into predictable toxic death?

A 2nd difficulty in what the president told us:

The enemy has for 12 yrs cultivated its weaponry. It has sought the components of nuclear destructive power from everywhere, including S. Africa. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, and taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction.

Why did it require 9-11 to establish the offensive capability of the terrorists. The president now tells us that "chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrosit networks are not easily contained. And that it would take one vial,or crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. If we have known with progressive certainty over 12 years that Saddam Hussein is creating these weapons and that he is not cooperating in any venture in disarmament, why have we not moved against him sooner?

It is too easy simply to blame Clinton for it. Yet the Republicans platform in the year 2000 and the Bush presidental campaign did not focus on the overwhelming need to move against Saddam Hussein.

[Fleet]

Originally posted by Original Prankster

The US did not want to enter the war at all. If it wasn't for the Japanese invading Pearl Harbor, then the US would probably have stayed out of the war altogether. I think that Brits have a right not to help the US in this war if they don't want to since that is what the US did when the Brits asked them for help during WWII.

Yes,I realize that. A lot also depends on who is the president at the time (and how the members of congress vote). Still, the U.S. certainly did NOT enter WWII at the last minute. And the U.S. did ship massive amounts of war materials to Britain to help them fight the war.

[RWCTV]

Originally posted by JOHN LENNON LIVES


You see that's the problem...we don't listen to other countries. The United States is one country, of many, on earth. In order to keep peace, we have to work with other countries! WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNRTY ON EARTH!!!!

Yeah, but we are currently the only SUPER-POWER. We set the moral authority and I think many people have forgotten that. In the 1980's, we were the superpower. People were afraid to do evil because of Ronald Reagan. He was the cowboy of the 1980's and he would say things that would make them afraid of doing this country ill.

History repeats itself and it gets far more potent and crazy as the patterns repeat. We can't diplomatically negotiate with terrorists. They want this country destroyed and will stop at nothing to make that happen. They think that we are "The Great Satan" because of our freedom. They do not believe in the freedom of religion, women in the workforce, women making it on their own. We are very fortunate for what we have. Many need to really take a deep look at what is going on. I would not want to puke up my insides from chemical warfare because some President chose to be diplomatic and did not help stop such things from being conceived.

[Owen]

You know, I reckon we're going to sovle the world's problems right here today. This constructive debate is truly changing hearts and minds.

E gads...Anyone whose opinion is unchangeable should probably stop reading controversial threads.

I'm a socialist. However, I support a war on Iraq. Why?

Apart from a great man like Vaclav Havel supporting it, I would rather the world went up in flames whilst we were fighting for good than when we doing jack.

I believe that we shouldn't just take on Iraq, but Norht Korea, and anyone who threatens world peace.

And there should be no smart alecking about the US being a threat to world peace; if Iraq want to stop the US threat to world peace, I'm sure the US would be happy for them to bring it.

What's the difference between me and an Iraqi? I have more money, and more body fat. No other real difference. Perhaps invading the world is the only way to stop war. Ironic, eh? If the whole world was one country, then though there would be terrorists, there wouldn't be people with nukes apart from the government (well, theoretically).

If I was president of the US, I'd hope to find the courage to do what Bush had done naturally. Bush is not one of the great presidents; but he is an honest man. I'd rather trust in him than Saddam. Mossop and friends, who would you choose?

I think there are, however, bigger problems than Saddam in the world today. Yes, take him out-I suggest one bullet to his head, not an expensive, bloody war. But how about stepping up the war on poverty, or on racism?

I don't think war is NECESSARY. War is only ever necessary when it is started upon you. Saddam has not started a war. But I think it is ADVISABLE.

Like BD, I've risked my life for one of my adoptive countries (Lebanon)-I've fought Syrian tanks with rocks and revolvers. I've seen the town I would like to call my home flattened by invaders. And everyday, I pray for a peaceful solution. However, one will not come.

So I know what war looks like. Many ex-soldiers are against the war because they know what war is like. I think they have a point. But they joined their military apparently knowing death would be their duty. Don't join the army unless you are willing to die for your country, is the message I send. In a week, I'm heading to Lebanon again, and from there, again, I'll fight.

And I hope people all over the world stop being complacent and realize that threats must always be eliminated. If a bully is running after little kids in the playground, asking for a fight, and you can take him down, and stop him bullying others, what do you do? Tell the teacher? Well, after the teacher tells him off and gives him detention, he goes back out and starts again. Some people do not stop because you ask them to.

I will not call Saddam evil, or any such thing; but he isn't conducive to world peace, and I would happily die to get him out of the way. Many Kurds, Shia and even Sunni Iraqis would so too.

However, one last thing...Remember two basic tenets of the US and British justice system.

"I'd rather a million guilty men went free, then one innocent man was punished."

"All men are innocent unless proven guilty."

If we break these basic tenets, what's to stop us continuing to slip down the road to corruption?

[Brian Damage]

Well said Owen.

[Kitt]

My gripe isn't with war in the generic term. Al qeada is the threat that we need to deal with. My gripe is with the reasons used to back the purpose and the intended results of this particular proposed war with Iraq. The purpose for it, according to Bush, is to snuff out terrorism. I don't see how it would accomplish that. We're told that al qaeda is alive and well and has cells all over the world. That's all most certainly true. And Bush and company tell us that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein has links with al qaeda. But, there is no evidence of that. Al qaeda and other extremist Islamic organizations hate Saddam Hussein, who is not a fundamental Islamic. So if Hussein were to share what weapons, if any, he may have with those who are fundamental Islamists then he could well be the first one that they'd use the weapons on. But yet Bush and company keep telling us that he might give weapons to Al qeada to use against us. There is no logic in that.

Bush is going at this preemptive strike idea because we are supposedly in immediate danger from Hussein. Bush and clan list and list again Hussein's track record of evil deeds, many of which took place 15 years ago with the full knowledge and compliance of the US government. Bush says he wants to free the Iraqi people so they may have a democracy. Even if that were possible, which it isn't because the makeup of the region will not allow democracy to take hold, what does it have to do with fending off further terrorist attacks on us from the likes of al qaeda? Remember...al qaeda is responsible for 9/11 not Iraq. The 'democratic Iraq' connection makes no sense. Hussein is one of many rotten despots in the world, but no matter how many times we're drilled on how rotten he is it has nothing to do with the threat of danger posed to us by al qeada.

Since there are al qaeda cells all over the world, and we know that al qaeda is without question a dangerous enemy, why are we spending time - and what will be hundreds of billions of dollars - on a war on Iraq? How much more safe could we possibly expect to be if we take out this one man, Hussein, who isn't even affiliated with al qeada? If we want to take out Hussein lets do that with the backing of the international community by indicting him for war crimes. The cost would be shared and, in that situation, the Iraqi people would be much more likely to turn him over. The Iraqi people would like to see Hussein ousted, but with that method they'd be willing and able to cooperate. They wouldn't be living under the threat of their cities being bombed by the US in order to accomplish it.

[bandito]

Very well said Kitt. what ever happened to north korea? they are moving 8,000 nuclear fuel rods and are preparing to produce a half dozen nuclear weapons. isnt that a pretty large threat yet bush has no intention of attacking north korea and could provide a written guarantee. why is president bush so focused on reaching a diplomatic resolution with north korea and not iraq? i think we have stronger evidence against north korea than we have against iraq.

[Kitt]

This article about Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, is a good example of how Bush and his administation try to mislead us by twisting the facts to make their case.
____________________________________________________

US is Misquoting My Iraq Report, Says Blix

By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
SMH Australia
February 1 2003

Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.

Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that "so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda".

"If we receive such information we will analyse it," he said. "Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts."

Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda.
He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had "no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq".

Ansar's role is at the heart of the US's latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

The New York Times, agencies

[Fleet]

Originally posted by kittflynn
This article about Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, is a good example of how Bush and his administation try to mislead us by twisting the facts to make their case.
____________________________________________________
US is Misquoting My Iraq Report, Says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
SMH Australia
February 1 2003
Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.
In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."
Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.


Well, I think in the next week or two, the following will happen:

Hans Blix will give U.N. approval to start military action in Iraq. He will do this because Saddam has not followed at least two of the U.N.'s own rules.
1. Saddam will not reveal where his weapons are.
2. Saddam will not account for those weapons.

If the U.N. will/does not support its own resolutions, what good is the U.N.?

Anthrax, Bio and Chemical weapons cannot be contained by inspectors.

[Brandon]

the united states has gone man?! how will we reproduce?!