PDA

View Full Version : the biggest bunch of crap i have read on this ng



Warren_Lushia
03-19-2003, 02:42 AM
quote -- "This is a time when Congress, Americans, and anyone else that is enjoying the freedom and liberties provided here for them should stand united behind their President. Another big disgrace is the Dixie Chick that had the wonderful quote while boldly standing on foreign soil. Maybe you or others do not agree with the war, or maybe you do not like Bush's policies, or maybe you hate politics period and seek out the unfathomable utopia swarming around in your head, but now is not the time to speak out. One of the wonderful things about our country is Freedom of most of whatever you want to do and that comes with a price. "

that is ABSOLUTE and complete utter bullsheet, and completely against the very principles of democracy. this kind of thinking is exactly how other countries allow a monster like hussein to come into power, and is exactly why hitler was successful and why a huge number of people in russia think of stalin as a hero. as long as their own life is going well, hell back whatever the person in charge wants to do. that is exactly why hitler became what he was, and the people of germany allowed such a monster to rise so quickly. same with stalin. americans like you, me, and many of the rest of the people on this board live in a country in which a true "war" itself is not being waged. the frontlines of an iraqi war are far removed from our cozy homes.

it saddens me to see the type of thinking expressed in the above quote, because most of all it is as un-american a thought as i can think of. a few weeks ago, 68% of the country was against any sort of war on iraq, and presidential approval ratings for bush were at an all-time low. now 66% back him, but the difference being most of that percentage comes from people who are "not sure" or "disapprove but back the president". that is bullshit. this aint about the freakin dixie chicks or whatever (i don't place much emphasis on celebrity opinions) but it is about freedom of speech. a few weeks ago over 2/3 of the country was against this war, but now that it is eminent, 1/3 of those people change face and blindly back bush. i bet many of those people would change their minds if they knew 1/2 of the war might be fought on the continental united states and their own homes might be bunkers and their children might be killed or even worse.

this "war" is complete bollocks, and the usa has NO right whatsoever to wage it. i am not about to try and defend a monster like hussein, but if this "war" is about hussein it should not be waged against an entire country, which is a sure-fire way of getting the people of that country to back hussein ala stalin in russia, hitler in germany, or bush in the usa. with the usa's endless and complete support of israel, we really don't need any more bad blood in the middle east. why the hell do you think the trade centers were taken down? and be honest, who do you really think, as an individual country, has more "weapons of mass destruction" iraq or north korea?

this whole thing is a giant ball of crap that has very little to do with "weapons of mass destruction" or "liberating the iraqi people" (as the right wingers want you to believe) or on the other side "all about the oil" as the left wingers want you to believe. but because of the type of "thinking" (oxymoron) in the above quote, we are supposed to blindly back and support a president just cause he is OUR president?!?! bullshit. when a democracy blindly backs a "president" or administration simply because "its the right thing to do, and the appropriate thing" then it is no longer a democracy. your placing faith in people you have no faith in. you have lost your power as a citizen of a democratic society. if ANYONE had doubts about this "war" they should either educate themselves as to the relevant issues, or retain their doubts. no reason to change your mind, just because you KNOW it is going to happen.

i am against this "war" and as an american citizen i don't feel i need to supress my thoughts or feelings and blindly back a president and a governmental administration i feel is wrong. and i won't do it, even if you think i should. this is the wrong way of doing things.

and in case your wondering, i tend to lean towards the right side of the fence, but in this case, i feel the usa is completely wrong and is making a big mistake. innocent lives will be lost for ZERO good reason. and if the usa "wins" this "war" i fully expect a bunch of total crap propaganda to pop up showing why it was really necessary -- none of it will be UN reports. all propaganda.

there simply is no good reason to take this to the extreme and wage a war against a whole country, while pretending it is againt a single man. and the bush freakin "ultimatim" is ridiculous, what if another country placed the same criteria on bush? it was simple posturing, and i can't believe so many people fell for it.

and dont you, e-gator or whatever you wanna call yourself, try and tell me or others who happen to disagree with you that we should shut up. that aint democracy bro, i'd call you a fascist. and i'd be careful about your previous assumptions that people on here don't know what they are talking about (conveniently only when they disagree with you!), i guarantee you i know alot more than you think i do. i also have the convenience of living in an international community, so i know what the rest of the world thinks too (not that it has any influence on my own opinion, but i aint a right wing christian "you should shut up and back bush" guy either)

i will stand here, as an american citizen just like any other who happens to "support" bush (either fully or cause they just shut up) and tell you i don't support this "war" in any way. shape, or form. and i am no less of an american than you, i just don't fall for the brainwashing on EITHER side. no, i will not shut up, and HOW DARE you or anyone else ask a fellow american to hide their beliefs to support something they don't beleive in? that, my friend, is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHITE!!!!!

and i won't stand for it,

warren lushia

Rod
03-19-2003, 03:05 AM
Hey warren who lit a fire under you butt? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif It's ok you can speak your peace that's what this forum is for. Personally I hope they ice the bastard and his clan. Get this thing over with and move on.

Rod

bluewolf
03-19-2003, 05:59 AM
Warren,

What would this forum do without you? You are a breath of fresh air in your individuality. Of course, it is VERY american to express one's views even if it goes against the status quo. Everybody has a different way of looking at things.

I think that some folks are trying to keep another 'hitler' from happening.

I have mixed feelings.I am not so sure why we have focused all of this attention on iraq when other counties have even more heinous weapons like n korea. I think thought that the horrors that sad am hussey has done are equal to what hitler did to the hebrew nation. I think that that is a biggie.

I dont know if war is the answer. Like I said before, get some agents to sanction him. Unfortunately and this is something that no one likes to think about, when we remove a bad person, someone worse often rises up to replace him.

I have studied nostradamus. One interpretation is that someone will rise up worse than him, a student of his and nuke new york, poson all of the water in the east and begin ww111.

Laura

Kato
03-19-2003, 07:57 AM
Warren, everyone has a right to an opinion. I hate to say this but I don't know what to think about this situation. I back our troops 100% in anything they do because they are American citizens and they more than deserve our respect. I'm sure there is an awful lot more to this than I know. I AM NOT FULLY EDUCATED ON THIS SUBJECT therefore I will not debate it. All I'm doing today is praying for people I consider to be hero's in our military.

Kato

eg8r
03-19-2003, 08:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
that is ABSOLUTE and complete utter bullsheet, and completely against the very principles of democracy. <hr /></blockquote> Ha ha ha, Warren you are a funny funny man. Were you educated in a government run institution (public school system). We are not a democracy. The US is a Republic. I do not know what principles you are referring to, but we are governed by the Constitution of the US, not some democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
this kind of thinking is exactly how other countries allow a monster like hussein to come into power, and is exactly why hitler was successful and why a huge number of people in russia think of stalin as a hero. as long as their own life is going well, hell back whatever the person in charge wants to do. that is exactly why hitler became what he was, and the people of germany allowed such a monster to rise so quickly. same with stalin. americans like you, me, and many of the rest of the people on this board live in a country in which a true "war" itself is not being waged. the frontlines of an iraqi war are far removed from our cozy homes. <hr /></blockquote> I believe Hitler "offered" more than the liberation of Iraq. I like that you have compared patriotism to Hitler. You must be a proud American. Tell me, does the flag scare you at night and you have to sleep with the light on?

[ QUOTE ]
a few weeks ago, 68% of the country was against any sort of war on iraq, and presidential approval ratings for bush were at an all-time low. now 66% back him, but the difference being most of that percentage comes from people who are "not sure" or "disapprove but back the president". <hr /></blockquote> I guess you are part of the other 44%. Do you have lunch with Daschle? Maybe when you get to be President you can remove Patriotism from all the books in the land.
[ QUOTE ]
but if this "war" is about hussein it should not be waged against an entire country, which is a sure-fire way of getting the people of that country to back hussein ala stalin in russia, hitler in germany, or bush in the usa. <hr /></blockquote> Man this whole post is quite long and winded but I will continue while holding my nose. I surely hope you read some news. The Iraqis are not falling back in line with Saddam, however they are being quiet right now becuase the don't want him to to kill them. How about those Iraqi soldiers that tried to surrender last week.

[ QUOTE ]
you have lost your power as a citizen of a democratic society. <hr /></blockquote> We are not a democratic society, we are a republic. Also, how would lose this power if it was given to you. My gosh, didn't the Amerian public vote and choose the President? Shouldn't you for some reason have a desire to now follow that President? You also referred to American desires of war being different if it was fought on the home front. I guess your mind only remembers Vietnam, and forgets a more important WWII, or maybe your forgot the Revolutionary War.

I wonder if you act with the same contempt to your local more micro life. Do you act this way when you boss tells you to do something and you don't enjoy it.

[ QUOTE ]
there simply is no good reason to take this to the extreme and wage a war against a whole country, while pretending it is againt a single man. <hr /></blockquote> I guess you think all the past wars were against entire countries and we needed to removed everyone. Let visit your favorite, Germany. Did the Americans go after Germany because of the citizens or the "whole country" as you put it? Nope, they went after Hitler. How about Stalin, Lenin, Milosevic, the Taliban? How about when the first colonists decided to leave Britain? Was this an act against the entire country of England, or just the English royalty.

We both have our opinions. I disagree with your stance against patriotism and standing behind our President and military.

I did not read further because it is probably the same stuff.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-19-2003, 08:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

<font color="blue">Warren,

Please don't take offense but I think you are misguided. </font color>

this kind of thinking is exactly how other countries allow a monster like hussein to come into power, and is exactly why hitler was successful and why a huge number of people in russia think of stalin as a hero. as long as their own life is going well, hell back whatever the person in charge wants to do. that is exactly why hitler became what he was, and the people of germany allowed such a monster to rise so quickly. same with stalin. americans like you, me, and many of the rest of the people on this board live in a country in which a true "war" itself is not being waged. the frontlines of an iraqi war are far removed from our cozy homes.

<font color="blue">I agree that Americans should not blindly follow the President. But I don't think it's fair to compare Bush to Stalin or Hitler. They were thugs and sadists (like Saddam) who ruled by terror, not due to the will of the people </font color>

this aint about the freakin dixie chicks or whatever (i don't place much emphasis on celebrity opinions) but it is about freedom of speech.

<font color="blue">Natalie Mains has every right to speak her mind. I have the right to condemn her verbally for what I consider a cowardly act. </font color>

this "war" is complete bollocks, and the usa has NO right whatsoever to wage it. i am not about to try and defend a monster like hussein, but if this "war" is about hussein it should not be waged against an entire country, which is a sure-fire way of getting the people of that country to back hussein ala stalin in russia, hitler in germany, or bush in the usa.

<font color="blue">Let me say this one more time. The Iraqis (civilian and military) will not back Saddam. They are praying for the USA to deliver them from their living hell. Mark my words. Write it down. </font color>

with the usa's endless and complete support of israel, we really don't need any more bad blood in the middle east. why the hell do you think the trade centers were taken down?

<font color="blue">Because Bin Laden is insane. </font color>

and be honest, who do you really think, as an individual country, has more "weapons of mass destruction" iraq or north korea?

<font color="blue">If we were going into N. Korea the exact same arguments would be made by the anti-war folks. </font color>

the usa is completely wrong and is making a big mistake. innocent lives will be lost for ZERO good reason.

<font color="blue">zero good reason? How can you make such a statement? </font color>

and if the usa "wins" this "war" i fully expect a bunch of total crap propaganda to pop up showing why it was really necessary -- none of it will be UN reports. all propaganda.

<font color="blue">How about hundreds of eyewitness accounts and forensic evidece of mass murder and torture? Will you believe that?

BTW have you seen the films from Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (5500 dead). I suggest you review that before you talk about propaganda. </font color>

<font color="red">Sept. 11, 2001 changed everything. Concerning Saddam "Patience is suicide" IMO </font color>

<font color="blue"> One more thing. When the Iraqis are dancing in the streets like the Afghans will you come here and admit you were wrong? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

Warren_Lushia
03-20-2003, 12:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>

<font color="blue">Warren,

Please don't take offense but I think you are misguided. </font color>

<font color="red"> wally, you may be right, but i have taken the time to try and educate myself on the subject as much as i can right now, and that includes reading other people's opinions. and i certainly do not take offense to those with differing opinions than mine. however, what got me started on this rant was egator trying to say people who oppose the war should shut up. THAT IS WRONG.</font color>

this kind of thinking is exactly how other countries allow a monster like hussein to come into power, and is exactly why hitler was successful and why a huge number of people in russia think of stalin as a hero. as long as their own life is going well, hell back whatever the person in charge wants to do. that is exactly why hitler became what he was, and the people of germany allowed such a monster to rise so quickly. same with stalin. americans like you, me, and many of the rest of the people on this board live in a country in which a true "war" itself is not being waged. the frontlines of an iraqi war are far removed from our cozy homes.

<font color="blue">I agree that Americans should not blindly follow the President. But I don't think it's fair to compare Bush to Stalin or Hitler. They were thugs and sadists (like Saddam) who ruled by terror, not due to the will of the people </font color>

<font color="red"> my comparison was not about bush the person (of course i realize he can not be compared to those other monsters in his actions) but how shutting up and blindly backing a leader is exactly how hitler and stalin were able to do what they did. in this way, backing the president by "shutting up" when you feel something is wrong is the same. </font color>

this aint about the freakin dixie chicks or whatever (i don't place much emphasis on celebrity opinions) but it is about freedom of speech.

<font color="blue">Natalie Mains has every right to speak her mind. I have the right to condemn her verbally for what I consider a cowardly act. </font color>

<font color="red"> so you agree with my fundamental point which got me started, which is everybody should feel free to speak their opinions, egator said those who oppose should now shut up. </font color>

this "war" is complete bollocks, and the usa has NO right whatsoever to wage it. i am not about to try and defend a monster like hussein, but if this "war" is about hussein it should not be waged against an entire country, which is a sure-fire way of getting the people of that country to back hussein ala stalin in russia, hitler in germany, or bush in the usa.

<font color="blue">Let me say this one more time. The Iraqis (civilian and military) will not back Saddam. They are praying for the USA to deliver them from their living hell. Mark my words. Write it down. </font color>

<font color="red"> in this instance, i hope you are right but i have seen little evidence of this. do you have some source of info i am not aware of? maybe you have some friends in cincy from iraq? (i had one here in lexington)</font color>

with the usa's endless and complete support of israel, we really don't need any more bad blood in the middle east. why the hell do you think the trade centers were taken down?

<font color="blue">Because Bin Laden is insane. </font color>

<font color="red"> i won't debate bin laden's sanity, but as far as i know, his major resentment with the usa is israel (along with a few other things) and that is the biggest beef the whole middle east has with the usa. </font color>

and be honest, who do you really think, as an individual country, has more "weapons of mass destruction" iraq or north korea?

<font color="blue">If we were going into N. Korea the exact same arguments would be made by the anti-war folks. </font color>

<font color="red"> wally, if your talking about fanatical peacenicks of which i am not a member, i agree. but i also think many people opposed to this war have legitimate reasons for their opinion. </font color>

the usa is completely wrong and is making a big mistake. innocent lives will be lost for ZERO good reason.

<font color="blue">zero good reason? How can you make such a statement? </font color>

<font color="red"> if the goal is to simply remove hussein from power, illegally waging a war against a country is what i call zero good reason. i am not defending hussein, i doubt many logical people could. however, bush violated both domestic and international law by his latest actions. </font color>

and if the usa "wins" this "war" i fully expect a bunch of total crap propaganda to pop up showing why it was really necessary -- none of it will be UN reports. all propaganda.

<font color="blue">How about hundreds of eyewitness accounts and forensic evidece of mass murder and torture? Will you believe that?

BTW have you seen the films from Saddam's gassing of the Kurds (5500 dead). I suggest you review that before you talk about propaganda. </font color>

<font color="red"> i am not defending, nor will i defend hussein's horrific actions. </font color>



<font color="blue"> One more thing. When the Iraqis are dancing in the streets like the Afghans will you come here and admit you were wrong? </font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

<font color="red">wally, i honestly don't have any problem admitting i am wrong, but people dancing in the streets won't prove i am wrong. to my knowledge, the taliban was much more oppressive than hussein, and the people you saw were a very select few. i also watched video's from middle eastern countries where people were singing, laughing, celebrating, burning flags in the streets when the trade centers were taken down. i sincerely hope this was a minority opinion, as may be the case with the afghans you saw. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-20-2003, 12:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kato:</font><hr> Warren, everyone has a right to an opinion. I hate to say this but I don't know what to think about this situation. I back our troops 100% in anything they do because they are American citizens and they more than deserve our respect. I'm sure there is an awful lot more to this than I know. I AM NOT FULLY EDUCATED ON THIS SUBJECT therefore I will not debate it. All I'm doing today is praying for people I consider to be hero's in our military.

Kato <hr /></blockquote>

kato, let me assure you i harbor no ill feelings what so ever towards the men and women in our nations military. they have an important job, and part of their job is to follow what those in command tell them to do without question. this is vital for any military to be successful. i am proud of them, and i wish them the best. i will not hold them in the same regard as i hold those in charge, it is not their fault, and they might be considered victims themselves. however, they really don't have much say. i hope they all return back safely, just as i hope every iraqi lives through this.

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-20-2003, 12:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bluewolf:</font><hr> Warren,


I think that some folks are trying to keep another 'hitler' from happening.

Laura <hr /></blockquote>

with that in mind, i would agree. but essentially another hitler already DID happen. and the big problem is we are going about the issue in a completely wrong way, including violating both international and domestic laws in the process. just because we are the most powerful doesn't mean we can do what ever we want in the face of worldwide opposition. anyway, i think you agree with what got me started on my rant, which is nobody should feel the need to "shut up" in this country if they disagree with something. i am certainly not telling anybody who disagrees with me to shut up.

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-20-2003, 01:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Hey warren who lit a fire under you butt? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif It's ok you can speak your peace that's what this forum is for. Personally I hope they ice the bastard and his clan. Get this thing over with and move on.

Rod <hr /></blockquote>

hey rod, egator lit the fire by suggesting that those opposed to war should just remain silent and back whatever their leader's wishes are in a time of war. i disagree with this fervently. sounds like maybe you do too.

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-20-2003, 03:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
that is ABSOLUTE and complete utter bullsheet, and completely against the very principles of democracy. <hr /></blockquote> Ha ha ha, Warren you are a funny funny man. Were you educated in a government run institution (public school system). We are not a democracy. The US is a Republic. I do not know what principles you are referring to, but we are governed by the Constitution of the US, not some democracy.

<font color="blue"> you know, its funny, i notice that when people don't have a valid arguement they often refer to single details and semantics to back what they say. if you wanna split hairs about silly issues, go ahead. the usa is a democracy by the dictionary's defintion. yeah i remember my old public school training, and i think i was taught the official nomenclature was "democratic republic". its been a while so i may be off, but it doesn't change anything. and yeah in case your wondering my undergraduate and graduate training are both in what can be considered state schools. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
this kind of thinking is exactly how other countries allow a monster like hussein to come into power, and is exactly why hitler was successful and why a huge number of people in russia think of stalin as a hero. as long as their own life is going well, hell back whatever the person in charge wants to do. that is exactly why hitler became what he was, and the people of germany allowed such a monster to rise so quickly. same with stalin. americans like you, me, and many of the rest of the people on this board live in a country in which a true "war" itself is not being waged. the frontlines of an iraqi war are far removed from our cozy homes. <hr /></blockquote> I believe Hitler "offered" more than the liberation of Iraq. I like that you have compared patriotism to Hitler. You must be a proud American. Tell me, does the flag scare you at night and you have to sleep with the light on?

<font color="blue">see this is the kind of moronic thinking that you continuously exhibit. the people of germany during the time of hitler's rise were certainly very patriotic. there are lessons to be learned from this, apparently you do not get them. it is DANGEROUS to think that a country should just shut up and back the leaders during a time of war. this is EXACTLY the kind of thinking during hitler and stalin times. and yes, i am a proud american, so much so that i have been accused of being overly patriotic. however, i don't believe this war was handled in a way that is allowed under international law (actually that is more fact than belief), and since you like to harp on silly details, also it violates the very constitution this "republic" operates under.</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
a few weeks ago, 68% of the country was against any sort of war on iraq, and presidential approval ratings for bush were at an all-time low. now 66% back him, but the difference being most of that percentage comes from people who are "not sure" or "disapprove but back the president". <hr /></blockquote> I guess you are part of the other 44%. Do you have lunch with Daschle? Maybe when you get to be President you can remove Patriotism from all the books in the land.

<font color="blue">don't be a moron. firstly (since you like to harp on silly details) find a calculator (since i guess you can't add) and see what 66 + 44 equals, you might be surprised. secondly, daschle is as full of crap as most politicians and i don't have any respect for his latest comments, as i feel he is not genuine but lobbying for a future presidential run. patriotism does not mean turning a blind eye to something you feel is wrong. it is a love for your country, and i love this country as much as you, maybe more. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
but if this "war" is about hussein it should not be waged against an entire country, which is a sure-fire way of getting the people of that country to back hussein ala stalin in russia, hitler in germany, or bush in the usa. <hr /></blockquote> Man this whole post is quite long and winded but I will continue while holding my nose. I surely hope you read some news. The Iraqis are not falling back in line with Saddam, however they are being quiet right now becuase the don't want him to to kill them. How about those Iraqi soldiers that tried to surrender last week.

<font color="blue"> yeah i read news, and use other means to gather facts and opinions, including even yours. to be honest, you seem to one of the more well informed people i have seen supporting this war. your understanding of communism kind of shocked me. however, you also have said people who disagree with the stance this country is taking should now shut up, and you also continuously berate people as being somehow less informed and less able to form a legitimate opinion on this matter than you when they disagree. i will agree with you that it is frustrating to argue with people that offer little evidence they even know what the hell they are talking about. but to be perfectly honest, i have seen much more or this type of ignorant reaction from those who are in favor of this "war" than those who are opposed. ALOT more. not on this board neccessarily. that is frustrating to me. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
you have lost your power as a citizen of a democratic society. <hr /></blockquote> We are not a democratic society, we are a republic. Also, how would lose this power if it was given to you. My gosh, didn't the Amerian public vote and choose the President? Shouldn't you for some reason have a desire to now follow that President? You also referred to American desires of war being different if it was fought on the home front. I guess your mind only remembers Vietnam, and forgets a more important WWII, or maybe your forgot the Revolutionary War.

<font color="blue"> yeah, i guess i'm too young to remember the revolutionary war, and i suspect you are too. even though that was hardly the same case, in this instance, if you want to draw this comparison, iraq is in the position WE were, and the british would be considered the current usa. hey, you brought it up, and you gotta admit its true. of course the details muddle this, but you brought it up.

and i suppose you may be old enough to remember world war 2, or even fought in it. but to suggest this war was "fought" on this soil is ludicrous and a complete insult to those countries in which the war was actually "fought". yes, an attack took place on a usa interest and was directly at our military. japan payed for those actions quite severely, including two nuclear bombs. but the frontlines of world war 2 were not in the usa and don't be so silly as to suggest that, you are insulting me, and my family (including my late grandfather who took a bullet in that war, and it was a long way from the usa)

and since you like details, no the american people did not vote bush into office, actually gore won the popular vote. a series of precedents set by our forefathers allowed bush into office, and i am CERTAIN if they could predict the future this would have never happened, as they did not envision such a scenario. hindsight is 20/20. and even if they did, NO i do not believe people should shut up when they feel something is morally, ethically, or legally wrong, simply because the leader of the country disagrees. that sir, is as big an example of an unpatriotic mind as i can think of when it comes to the usa. you are shielding yourself in a cloak of "patriotism" and accusing those who disagree with you as being unpatriotic and should shut their mouths. this is similar to a kids' reaction covering their ears and shouting "i can't hear you!"

i don't blame people who feel they are not informed for backing the president, and placing faith in the country's "elected" officials, but don't assume everyone should shut up or that everyone is less informed than you. </font color>

I wonder if you act with the same contempt to your local more micro life. Do you act this way when you boss tells you to do something and you don't enjoy it.

<font color="blue"> my "boss" has never told me to do something that i felt was morally, ethically, and legally wrong. he has instructed me to do things i didn't agree with, but not to the degree we are talking about, and yes i did them, under the respect and assumption that he had more experience on which to base the decision. i don't really think the two are comparable though. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
there simply is no good reason to take this to the extreme and wage a war against a whole country, while pretending it is againt a single man. <hr /></blockquote> I guess you think all the past wars were against entire countries and we needed to removed everyone. Let visit your favorite, Germany. Did the Americans go after Germany because of the citizens or the "whole country" as you put it? Nope, they went after Hitler. How about Stalin, Lenin, Milosevic, the Taliban? How about when the first colonists decided to leave Britain? Was this an act against the entire country of England, or just the English royalty.

<font color="blue">well you seem to have provided much more evidence for my case than your own. no, the war that took place against hitler's germany was not the same. do you agree with wally that the people of iraq are anxiously awaiting american "liberation" or that they are firmly in support of his power? please answer this as i can not debate further with out your answer. its hard for me to ascertain because you seem to never take a position on those who agree with you even if they come from a different perspective, as long as they agree with the finals means.

btw, why bring lenin into the conversation, what kind of stuff you got on him? i am very interested to hear? plus i don't remember us going to war againt lenin. did not lenin come into such a power because of a war? and certainly not anything like going to war against iraq.

and as far as i know, the usa and stalin were basically on the same side of world war 2 and against hitler, when did the usa wage a war against russia during stalin times? stalin died not long after world war 2, i am interested when this war took place?

do you even know what the hell you are talking about? i'm not an expert on world affairs, but i am starting to get the feeling i know a hell of a lot more than YOU, or at the very least what you are giving me credit for.

</font color>
We both have our opinions. I disagree with your stance against patriotism and standing behind our President and military.

<font color="blue">yeah, you are correct that we both have our opinions. my big beef was you think those opposed to your opinions should shut up. my "stance" was not against "patriotism", if fact just the opposite. your stance seems to be one of those in countries in which people are not allowed to express an opinion. you are, funnily enough, backing the principles these country's use to gain support. "just shut up and nod in approval" in iraq , breaking this "code" may get you killed, in the usa, you instead have people like you who agree with the principle, just not the punishment. you are an american version of hussein's beliefs, don't you even see that on a slight basis, at the very least?!?!

if you wanna fight the "good" war, instead of attacking people with who you disagree with on the offensive end, by claiming they are ignorant and misinformed, please do so by leadership, not propaganda. you dismissing every claim of "foul" based on your own opinion doesn't make it fact. i have several points i have made which are fact, including the us constitution which made no claims of "shut up" in a time of war. back that one up. bush has violated international law, as well as the the constitution you hold so dearly (and i do too, just i don't re-interpret the words). not everyone is as dumb as you think, so stop acting that way.
</font color>

I did not read further because it is probably the same stuff.

<font color="blue"> there is a slight chance i know alot more than you think i do. and on certain issues, as amazing as it may seem there is a slight chance i know a hell of a lot more than you. of course, maybe i am wrong, but maybe you are too. the difference is, i ain't telling you that you should shut up. i guess i am too patriotic. or in your opinion, less patriotic than you cause i differ in opinion. yes, i am " a funny, funny man" and guess what, i will continue to say what i think and not shut up, as you ordered, and guess what else, you can bite me if you think anything less. there are a lot of misinformed people marching for peace, but there are also alot of misinformed people standing behind a war. the difference is i don't tell them their voice should not only not be heard, but not even spoken. you, egator, do that. </font color>
eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

eg8r
03-20-2003, 07:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> however, what got me started on this rant was egator trying to say people who oppose the war should shut up. THAT IS WRONG. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> egator said those who oppose should now shut up. <hr /></blockquote> I did not say shut up, I just said now is not the time to be on foreign soil (shows weakness) blasting your President. I did say, now is the time to Stand behind your President. Whether Warren or any one else does not "like" (nobody likes war) or does not approve of the war, who cares, it has started and you should stand behind the President. This is a time when you quit thinking about yourself and start thinking more about America. In case Warren does not know, Americans across the country have agreed to the war through polls and voice and their children and spouses are over there fighting. Quit your whining about your free speech right now and support the military. Do you even know why you are able to enjoy free speech? I am sure you do, and yes that was a rhetorical question but sometimes it needs to be asked. If we were to lose the war, then what? Would you feel better, since we should never have been there in the first place, give me a break.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-20-2003, 07:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally:</font><hr>
Let me say this one more time. The Iraqis (civilian and military) will not back Saddam. They are praying for the USA to deliver them from their living hell. Mark my words. Write it down.<hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren_Lushia:</font><hr>
in this instance, i hope you are right but i have seen little evidence of this. do you have some source of info i am not aware of? maybe you have some friends in cincy from iraq? (i had one here in lexington)
<hr /></blockquote>

There have been a couple of articles in the Cincy Enquirer concerning local Iraqi expatriots. That's where I got the impression that the Iraqis are praying for deliverance from this madman. I tried to find them online but couldn't. I'll keep looking.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-20-2003, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
I did not say shut up, I just said now is not the time to be on foreign soil (shows weakness) blasting your President. I did say, now is the time to Stand behind your President. Whether Warren or any one else does not "like" (nobody likes war) or does not approve of the war, who cares, it has started and you should stand behind the President. This is a time when you quit thinking about yourself and start thinking more about America. In case Warren does not know, Americans across the country have agreed to the war through polls and voice and their children and spouses are over there fighting. Quit your whining about your free speech right now and support the military. Do you even know why you are able to enjoy free speech? I am sure you do, and yes that was a rhetorical question but sometimes it needs to be asked. If we were to lose the war, then what? Would you feel better, since we should never have been there in the first place, give me a break.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I agree with warren that everyone has the right to voice their opposition to the war....but, stuff like Natalie Maines and those other clowns have been saying is demoralizing to the troops. Therefore right now it's best just to shut up.

eg8r
03-20-2003, 07:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
yeah i remember my old public school training, and i think i was taught the official nomenclature was "democratic republic". <hr /></blockquote> This says it all. I too went to Government school but I also did not take whatever they said and use it as law. In a couple cases I even took opportunities to correct the teacher. I was very respectful and only asked they show me where the US was based on a democracy. One teacher even took the evening to think about it and returned the next and told the class that I was correct and the county was founded as a Republic. This really does not matter in the whole scheme of things it just helps to know where we are all educated (no offense to your schools, it just shows where the foundation is built) and know what we deem to be the facts. No more than that. As trivial as it sounds it is good to know. Not that you believe this way or not, a lot of Democrats would like to get their way on the hill and impose their beliefs of a "democracy". If you look at what they offer it is a just another socialist idea floating on the hill. Call it what you want or whatever makes you feel better, but it is what it is.

[ QUOTE ]
i don't believe this war was handled in a way that is allowed under international law <hr /></blockquote> This is nice. How about you go back to Nov and read about the Security Council vote on 1441. We have done everything correct under International Law and have been doing so since 1991.

I ask you, have you even thought about what might happen if we just left this alone and did not strike? I will tell you what I have thought about. Sure Saddam does not have any weapons that can reach the US from Iraq, but this does not mean he cannot support a terroristic activity. I also what would happen should Saddam hand off some weapons and they do get inside our borders, what might happen.

Do you really think Saddam would be going to the UN asking for permission to blow us up? Did Saddam go to the UN requesting the right to take over Kuwait? The answer is NO.

I not sure if this is clear, but, we did go to the UN, and have been doing so for 12 years. All parties involved UNANIMOUSLY approved 1441. Go back and read the end of 1441 and tell me what that includes. (a quick hint will tell you the use of force.)

You can go on with your banter and even call it crazy to follow the President but in the end we will all see.

I will promise this to the board...If when we win, kill/remove Saddam from control and help the Iraqi people implement their own form of government and offer them the liberties and freedom we have had for a couple hundred years...If after all this, the Iraqi people send us a message and tell us to go you know where, because they still want Saddam back, then I will withdraw everything I said.

I gaurantee you, the Iraqis will embrace freedom much the same way our colonists and early statesmen did, however you might be right. The President could be completely wrong and all those Iraqis murdered by their ruler might just like it that way.

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2003, 07:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
we are going about the issue in a completely wrong way, including violating both international and domestic laws in the process. <hr /></blockquote> Please list these laws that we are violating. Congress agreed before Nov, and the Security Council was Unanimous in voting for it in Nov.

Where are the violations?

eg8r

Candyman
03-20-2003, 02:37 PM
Warren, I apologize for being so shallow and naive in my support for President Bush. I confess that I watch to much Fox News and listen to Rush a bit to much. I promise to watch Dan Blather before the next war.NOT!!! We will nether have a Hitler take over our country because of stubborn people just like you and me. Now you settle back in your lazyboy and pull for those Wildcats, while I pull for my Bluedevils! Ain't it great that we live in a country that we can agree to disagree? You have a good day.
Candyman

bluewolf
03-20-2003, 03:11 PM
Hey, warren, my sister in law was very much against this war. She even participated in antiwar demonstrations in dc. My brother in law ( her husband) is very conservative.

She is EXTREMELY VOCAL.

When Bush was addressing the nation the other night, I turned to WW and said, do you think Julia will stop talking long enough for David to hear what the president is saying? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Laura

Rod
03-20-2003, 03:32 PM
I agree Warren, if people hadn't protested we may have been in Vietnam longer than our time waisted there to begin with.
No discredit to those that served but it was a waste of human lives.
Rod

Warren_Lushia
03-21-2003, 12:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
we are going about the issue in a completely wrong way, including violating both international and domestic laws in the process. <hr /></blockquote> Please list these laws that we are violating. Congress agreed before Nov, and the Security Council was Unanimous in voting for it in Nov.

Where are the violations?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

congress did not vote to give bush the right to declare war, and the vote they did take, which was to allow the use of military force, was unconstitutional to begin with. to declare war requires a separate independent congressional vote, and don't think for one second that would have passed right now, or they would have pursued it. and don't cling too hard to that 50% of the democrats who are now voicing support -- they really don't have any say now in the matter, and are merely thinking of their own public image and re-elections. apparently about 1/2 of them figure this will make them look good. if there was an actual vote with some meaning, i think you'd see a very big difference.

the UN security counsel did not draft any resolution authorizing the use of military force or declaration of war by the usa or any country. you like to keep touting this resolution 1441, please why don't you read it yourself, there is no statements regarding the authorization of military force. why the heck you think the usa was still trying to work through the UN if, like you say, they already had the UN's blessing? fact is they could not get it at the current time, and broke international law by invading iraq. this is not a question of interpretation, this is a simple fact. and bush has opened himself to the possibility of being tried as a war criminal. this is also a fact, i am not making this up. the chances were stated as "unlikely" by international law experts, but there was no question as to whether the bush administration violated international law.

i know you like facts, and there you have them.

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-21-2003, 01:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
yeah i remember my old public school training, and i think i was taught the official nomenclature was "democratic republic". <hr /></blockquote> This says it all. I too went to Government school but I also did not take whatever they said and use it as law. In a couple cases I even took opportunities to correct the teacher. I was very respectful and only asked they show me where the US was based on a democracy. One teacher even took the evening to think about it and returned the next and told the class that I was correct and the county was founded as a Republic.

<font color="blue"> you know your focus on this issue is a little bit silly. i am sure you are quite proud of your grade school heroics, but look up democracy in the dictionary and explain to me how the usa isn't a democracy. it is, pure and simple. not to shatter your victory in elementary school, but it really doesn't have any bearing here. and who really gives a crap, this ain't even what we are talking about, just an apparently sensitive side issue for you. </font color>


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i don't believe this war was handled in a way that is allowed under international law <hr /></blockquote> This is nice. How about you go back to Nov and read about the Security Council vote on 1441. We have done everything correct under International Law and have been doing so since 1991.

I ask you, have you even thought about what might happen if we just left this alone and did not strike? I will tell you what I have thought about. Sure Saddam does not have any weapons that can reach the US from Iraq, but this does not mean he cannot support a terroristic activity. I also what would happen should Saddam hand off some weapons and they do get inside our borders, what might happen.

<font color="blue">yeah, sure, i have wondered and now will never know if a better solution could be found. you seem to think that i feel saddam should just be left alone, which is not my point AT ALL. how much you think he can accomplish with his country full of weapons inspectors? he may not have been complying fully, and hell, his previous heinous acts should be enough to warrant the man's removal, but that aint the point. waging a war, in a very sensitive region, without the backing of the UN or even following the correct constitutional path, is a bad move and sets a dangerous precedent. this was handled completely wrong, and goes against the goals of the UN and world security. the usa has a bad habit of handling its foreign policy with the grace of a linebacker trying to figure skate. this is why a huge part of the world hates us. </font color>

Do you really think Saddam would be going to the UN asking for permission to blow us up? Did Saddam go to the UN requesting the right to take over Kuwait? The answer is NO.

<font color="blue">correct. so why, if we are so much better, and the saviors of the world, should we do the exact same thing, and go againt the UN? now we are violating international law as well. </font color>

I not sure if this is clear, but, we did go to the UN, and have been doing so for 12 years. All parties involved UNANIMOUSLY approved 1441. Go back and read the end of 1441 and tell me what that includes. (a quick hint will tell you the use of force.)

<font color="blue">you know i am quickly beginning to question my earlier assumption that you seemed to be well informed. i make no claims of being an expert, but i think i'm starting to feel like one compared to you. did you read the resolution? there is no mention of what you are claiming in this resolution. </font color>

You can go on with your banter and even call it crazy to follow the President but in the end we will all see.

<font color="blue">yeah well, this thing is, you may not realize it at this time, but i am hoping for the same end i think you are. but i am seriously concerned about the way we went about this, how this war may progress (i am not as optimistic as you) and the consequences of what we have done in the future. the usa also has a recent history of employing its foreign policy and military might to have it come bite us back in the ass. this latest war is yet another example. </font color>

I will promise this to the board...If when we win, kill/remove Saddam from control and help the Iraqi people implement their own form of government and offer them the liberties and freedom we have had for a couple hundred years...If after all this, the Iraqi people send us a message and tell us to go you know where, because they still want Saddam back, then I will withdraw everything I said.

<font color="blue">you seem to think i am looking for some personal victory here, or that i want you to recant your statements. you are taking this a little too personal, i sincerely hope you and the others who seem to only think of the absolute best-case scenarios are correct. hell, if i thought me recanting my statements here made one iota of difference i would state right now that this war is the single greatest thing to ever happen for world security and peace and bush was right in everything he did. the sad thing is, we have to wait and see. </font color>

I gaurantee you, the Iraqis will embrace freedom much the same way our colonists and early statesmen did, however you might be right. The President could be completely wrong and all those Iraqis murdered by their ruler might just like it that way.

<font color="blue">jeeze, you didn't put a slant on the above statement did ya?! once someone is murdered, i don't think they can "like" something or not. consider this, stalin killed 20-30 million people, and he was considered a hero by many, including many today. he used a strategy for war against germany that was basically a gigantic slaughter of his own people, yet he was victorious (and such a strategy may well happen in iraq in bagdhad, very similar basic principle). germany became a military force under hitler, even though he was attempting genocide. i think its a quite an optomistic assumption to think the people of iraq are largely against their leader, and will embrace the usa invasion with open arms, ESPECIALLY considering the way the usa, and the bush adminstration chooses to go about things, breaking international laws and its own constitution. in a region with a huge bias against the usa based on its foreign policy, a volatile region in which hostilities towards the west are bred, a region in which legions of young impressionable minds can be swayed at a moments notice, i think alot of people are being entirely too optomistic about the will of the iraqi people. </font color>

<font color="blue"> warren..</font color>

mickey2
03-21-2003, 01:49 AM
Just to clear up some questions:
-SC Res 1441 (2002)
".... That the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it wil face serious consequences as a result of is continued violates of is obligations."
It's rather clear that there is no war automaticity. War, according to the UN Charter is only allowed in two cases
(a) self defence
(b) clear resolution by the Security Council

It's also clearly against article 2.4 of the UN Charter to attack Iraq.

Warren_Lushia
03-21-2003, 03:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> however, what got me started on this rant was egator trying to say people who oppose the war should shut up. THAT IS WRONG. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> egator said those who oppose should now shut up. <hr /></blockquote> I did not say shut up, I just said now is not the time to be on foreign soil (shows weakness) blasting your President.

<font color="blue"> no you did not, my abbreviation of your statement to "shut up" is merely to avoid excessive verbiage (!) but retain the general thought. you are saying shut up, pure and simple.</font color>

I did say, now is the time to Stand behind your President.

<font color="blue">i will not stand behind him, even if the best case scenario for the war works out, because his actions created a very dangerous precedent. i won't feel any more homeland security knowing how many more people the usa has pissed off while demonstrating their might. i don't see a way to win this, unless every single thing goes 100% the way the bush administration says it will, and making a gigantic assumption that even if that happens, there will be no repercussions.

the usa can't even kill osama bin laden in a country as remote as afghanistan. just how in the hell do you think we can target saddam hussein in a city of 5 million, without destroying the whole city? don't be silly, or niave. i hope they got the guy, but you think i'm gonna trust reports knowing what i know (and as should most people), only to have hussein pop up again and laugh in our face? </font color>

Whether Warren or any one else does not "like" (nobody likes war) or does not approve of the war, who cares, it has started and you should stand behind the President.

<font color="blue">bullshit. don't you or anybody tell me i should stand behind a president who violated international laws, and domestic laws, to acheive his final goal. </font color>

This is a time when you quit thinking about yourself and start thinking more about America.

<font color="blue">i think i am thinking alot more about america than you. i am thinking of the soldiers who may return after a giant bloodbath and be treated like 2nd class citizens (ala vietnam). i am thinking of brave warriors who may be brought down 10 years later because of some chemical attack, they were not even aware of, and cause the leaders of this country decided their fate in advance. i am thinking of the terrible consequences of a stalingrad type battle in the city of bagdhag. millions of people needlesslessly slaughtered, but hey, at least some one wins right? nice move, i'm sure everybody will love us. </font color>

In case Warren does not know, Americans across the country have agreed to the war through polls and voice and their children and spouses are over there fighting.

<font color="blue">bullshit. there was never a popular vote in the usa, and the polls i am aware of before it was clear that war was gonna happen no matter what your vote was, we were clearly in opposition to war. including a popular vote that was close to 70% against any sort of war. don't bring in votes or popular polls, egator, unless you enjoy being bashed over the head with facts. </font color>
Quit your whining about your free speech

<font color="blue"> where was i whining about free speech?!?!</font color>

right now and support the military. Do you even know why you are able to enjoy free speech?

<font color="blue">hmmm, i think this darn question is one of those there trick questions i done heard about. hmm, i venture this here as a guess: i'm venturing to guess we owe all our countries freedoms to a giant creature, the giant brave named eg8tr, who stood up on american soil for all he believed in and brought justice to the world, through his unequalled insight, allbow the mighty e-gator.</font color>

I am sure you do, and yes that was a rhetorical question but sometimes it needs to be asked. If we were to lose the war, then what? Would you feel better, since we should never have been there in the first place, give me a break.

<font color="blue"> don't put words into my mouth, you bastard, i didn't put them into yours. you are going beyond the call of duty, later, warren.. </font color>
giant brave

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

eg8r
03-21-2003, 07:37 AM
Warren, you are too easy. I hope you are not sweating everytime you post. Maybe I am just not as upset with your posts, maybe this is because I already know where it comes from, who knows.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> where was i whining about free speech?!?!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> i will not stand behind him, even if the best case scenario for the war works out <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> There you go. I guess you are whining about it. You want to stand by what you believe inspite of all the intelligence in Washington. This my friend is your freedom of speech at work. You are doing it by a simple post on the board, but just for you, we will consider it the same as coming out of your mouth. Maybe I cannot see the bigger picture, maybe you can't. Time will tell.


[ QUOTE ]
don't you or anybody tell me i should stand behind a president who violated international laws, and domestic laws, to acheive his final goal. <hr /></blockquote> Hey big boy, with your big cussing mouth, when are you going to prove this crap. LOL There was unanimous approval in the Security Council over 1441. There is proof of the International side. There was a vote prior to that in Congress with complete bi-partisan agreement.
[ QUOTE ]
there was never a popular vote in the usa,<hr /></blockquote> It happened just after the Bush speech. I do not remember who did the poll and yes some Americans did not agree with war but they did vote to stand behind the President.

[ QUOTE ]
i think this darn question is one of those there trick questions i done heard about <hr /></blockquote>Nope, not a trick question. It came from war.

[ QUOTE ]
i think i am thinking alot more about america than you. i am thinking of the soldiers who may return after a giant bloodbath and be treated like 2nd class citizens <hr /></blockquote> Alright, you got me there. Try not to think, it is clouding your mind. This time just do some reading and research. I wonder if you would be able to show some sort of chance there will be an American bloodbath. If you are worried about an Iraqi military bloodbath, then maybe you would like to head over there and be a human shield.

[ QUOTE ]
don't put words into my mouth, you bastard, i didn't put them into yours. you are going beyond the call of duty, later, warren.. <hr /></blockquote> Warren, would you cut out all the language and name calling. You showing immaturity.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 08:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
....There was unanimous approval in the Security Council over 1441. There is proof of the International side. There was a vote prior to that in Congress with complete bi-partisan agreement.

<hr /></blockquote>

Not to mention this little tidbit. Saddam started a war 13 years ago against our ally. We defeated him. He signed an agreement to disarm in order to save his own ass and end the war. He did not live up to the agreement. He did the exact opposite. That gives us the right to take him down.

Does anyone think we would have let Japan or Germany pull this crap after WWII ?

eg8r
03-21-2003, 08:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but look up democracy in the dictionary and explain to me how the usa isn't a democracy. <hr /></blockquote>This is a case in point where you are looking for the information you want to see. Look into the Constitution or Pledge of Allegiance (maybe you might want to even say the Pledge out loud) and see we are a Republic.

[ QUOTE ]
how much you think he can accomplish with his country full of weapons inspectors? <hr /></blockquote> I don't know. Since you have such insight with all you military buddies overseas you tell us. What has Saddam been doing for the past 12 years? This is a pathetic quote from you, if you really think the weapons inspectors have only been there for a couple months (I don't want to hurt feelings, this is just what I read from your post). There have been inspectors in Iraq for the majority of the 12 years. He has continued business as usual.

[ QUOTE ]
, his previous heinous acts should be enough to warrant the man's removal, but that aint the point. waging a war, <hr /></blockquote> This is truly insightful knowledge. I disagree, I think this is exactly the point. His heinous acts have not changed and they have continued right up until now. Maybe you believe we should have left Milosevic alone. I mean gosh his acts were only heinous also.
[ QUOTE ]
correct. so why, if we are so much better, and the saviors of the world, should we do the exact same thing, <hr /></blockquote> We are not being better, just different. The difference is that the US DID go to the UN and ask for approval. It was granted in Nov based on 1441.
[ QUOTE ]
jeeze, you didn't put a slant on the above statement did ya?! once someone is murdered, i don't think they can "like" something or not. <hr /></blockquote> When i referred to the Iraqis embracing Freedom I am referring to those that are still alive. That should not have been as confusing as it appears it was.

[ QUOTE ]
germany became a military force under hitler, even though he was attempting genocide. <hr /></blockquote> If you want to call what I said a bunch of crap so be it, I have an easy heart, but I would hardly agree with the stuff you just puked out. Hitler "attempting" genocide. I am beginning to wonder if you have read anything in our history. To clearify what I really hope you were trying to say but failed so miserably, Hitler COMMITTED genocide. This is way off the topic but it might help to understand your position on the Iraqi situation. Go tell all those Jewish families that Hitler was only "attempting" to kill them. That sir is a bunch of crap. LOL

[ QUOTE ]
i think its a quite an optomistic assumption to think the people of iraq are largely against their leader, and will embrace the usa invasion with open arms, <hr /></blockquote>This is another example of your misinterpretation of what I post. I do not say I believe they are embracing invasion, the invasion is just something had to happen so the Iraqi people can embrace FREEDOM. I am saying they will embrace freedom. I promise to try harder to clearify things if you promise to show life.

[ QUOTE ]
breaking international laws and its own constitution. <hr /></blockquote>This comes from the same paragraph as the prior quote and is once again another mis-truth. You have yet to prove this.

[ QUOTE ]
i think alot of people are being entirely too optomistic about the will of the iraqi people. <hr /></blockquote> This part I definitely believe you could be correct, only time will tell.

eg8r

eg8r
03-21-2003, 08:31 AM
Great. Thank you. Now that you have access the actual words, go back and read what resolutions 1441 continues. It states that the previous 678 and 687 (I believe these are the two numbers but I am going off memory) are still in effect and this is a continuance. 678 states that if Saddam does not stop and disarm we can attack. 687 says, in coninuance of 678, blah blah blah. 1441 says, in continuance of the previous resolutions, blah blah blah. You can read it yourself, just read the whole thing. It is way to easy to pull out what you want to hear and believe it as the whole truth.

eg8r

eg8r
03-21-2003, 08:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
and the vote they did take, which was to allow the use of military force, was unconstitutional to begin with. <hr /></blockquote> Ha ha ha, I guess you are the expert not those in Congress. First you tell everyone we violated the Constitution by not voting, then I show you Congress did vote and they approved it. Then you say (sounding like a little boy taking his ball home), "Well, it still isn't Constitutional." WAH WAH WAH. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
please why don't you read it yourself, there is no statements regarding the authorization of military force. <hr /></blockquote> Well I posted this above, so go back and read it. It is in response to Mickey. Resolution 1441 states it is in continuance of 678 and 687 (these numbers are by memory and may be wrong, go back and read the resolution to see what the numbers should be). The first one stated authorization of the use of force. The second one was in continuance of the first one and if Iraq did not meet the new agenda then by continuance of the first one, they could attack. Then 1441 comes up in continuance of the first two. Follow the new resolution or get attacked based on the first resolution. Saddam was not following it so we attacked. This resolution had a unanimous vote of approval. We have obeyed all International rules. Just because they UN did not stiffen their back and move in accordance with their wishes does not make their snails pace movement the new law. All the resolutions are still in tact with unanimous approval. Bush is just the first one to do something about it.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 09:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

....This is a case in point where you are looking for the information you want to see. Look into the Constitution or Pledge of Allegiance (maybe you might want to even say the Pledge out loud) and see we are a Republic.....
<hr /></blockquote>

You are correct.

We are a representative republic. When this is pointed out some people call it semantics. But it's not. This is really an important point.

Picture this scenario. If we were a true democracy a simple majority could make the rules. What if men were 52% of the populace. They could legalize rape with a simple vote of the people.

And that is why the founders formed a representative republic. To create a buffer between a mob mentality and the law.

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 09:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>
....Bush is just the first one to do something about it.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

And thank God someone has the cojones to do it...finally.

heater451
03-21-2003, 09:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>. . .<font color="red">We are a representative republic.</font color> When this is pointed out some people call it semantics. But it's not. This is really an important point. . . .<hr /></blockquote>Earlier in the thread, Warren explained that he understood it to be a "democratic republic".

If we split hairs on the denotation of the words "democracy" and "republic", then you can consider that the latter is somewhat truer. However, this itself is inherent in the term, as "democratic" is an adjective modifier of the noun "republic".

Eg8r and Warren are (to degrees) both correct. And, again, if one were to only have the choice of the terms "democracy" or "republic", to describe our system, the latter would indeed be **more correct**. The choosing of representatives is the 'democratic' part--and in some cases, one might consider the "referendum" of an "initiative" to be an example of democratic action.

One of them simply took it from the first post and turned it into an arguing point, which was taken up by the other (then you, and now myself).



=================

Wally_in_Cincy
03-21-2003, 10:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>
There have been a couple of articles in the Cincy Enquirer concerning local Iraqi expatriots. That's where I got the impression that the Iraqis are praying for deliverance from this madman. I tried to find them online but couldn't. I'll keep looking. <hr /></blockquote>


http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/02/07/loc_iraqiprof07.html


http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/19/loc_bronson19.html

mickey2
03-21-2003, 10:32 AM
I am well aware of SC resolution 678 and 687.

But it’s important to really take a closer look on them. Both had very specific goals; 678 was about removing troops from Kuwait and 687 about cease-fire /disarmament regulations.
One might argue that Iraq was not fully following 687, but if you really read 687 you will see that it legitimates nor attack on Iraq or a regime change of Iraq.
The phrase, commonly used to authorise force, “all necessary means” is missing in 1441. This did not happen by accident. 1441 written as it was because the SC did not want to legitimate any war on 1441.
Even John Negroponte said clearly that 1441 contains ‚no hidden trigger‘ and Sir Jeremy Greenstock said it has ‚no automaticity‘.

Let’s face it, outside the USA and UK nearly everyone else judge the current situation as a clear break of international law. This is not something totally new. The Kosovo war was also not backed by the UN, one main difference might be that this time the world opinion is clearly against this war.
I fully respect your pro-war opinion although I do not share it, but I doubt your interpretation of the SC.

eg8r
03-21-2003, 10:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The phrase, commonly used to authorise force, &amp;#8220;all necessary means&amp;#8221; is missing in 1441. This did not happen by accident. 1441 written as it was because the SC did not want to legitimate any war on 1441. <hr /></blockquote> 1441 is a continuance of the prior two. They are all still in effect and this is one more layer.

Resolution 1441 is the proof that we did go through the international means to do what we are doing. We are first and foremost going in to disarm and this issue has already been agreed back in the 90's. The US is not illegal in the International side of things. If anything we are one of a couple that are actually enforcing the UN policies.

eg8r

heater451
03-21-2003, 11:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Great. Thank you. Now that you have access the actual words, go back and read what resolutions 1441 continues. It states that the previous 678 and 687 (I believe these are the two numbers but I am going off memory) are still in effect and this is a continuance. 678 states that if Saddam does not stop and disarm we can attack. 687 says, in coninuance of 678, blah blah blah. 1441 says, in continuance of the previous resolutions, blah blah blah. You can read it yourself, just read the whole thing. It is way to easy to pull out what you want to hear and believe it as the whole truth.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> <font color="green">The resolutions are all endeavors to get Iraq to comply with leaving Kuwait alone, and dismantling arms, with some mentions of force (see text in <font color="red">RED</font color>). One might take this to be an allowance by the UN, for the US (as a member) to kick some ass, but I think that's something of a loose interpretation.

Also, Congress did vote for a use of force against the threat of Iraq, from what I've seen (sorry, I lost the reference), and I believe it passed 2-to-1. However, I think this is a bit like the local highschool cheerleading squad voting to have the football team beat up another school's team, if you will pardon the lightness of the analogy.</font color>



RESOLUTION 660 (1990) (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm)

The Security Council,
Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,
Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION 678 (1990) (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm)

The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
<font color="blue">Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use</font color><font color="red"> all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions</font color> and to restore international peace and security in the area; </font color>
Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
Decides to remain seized of the matter.
------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION 687 (1991) (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm)

Welcoming the restoration to Kuwait of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and the return of its legitimate Government,

Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),
Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);

Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION 1441 (http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm)

UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

<font color="red">13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;</font color>

=====================

heater451
03-21-2003, 11:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickey2:</font><hr> . . .The phrase, commonly used to authorise force, “all necessary means” is missing in 1441. This did not happen by accident. 1441 written as it was because the SC did not want to legitimate any war on 1441.
Even John Negroponte said clearly that 1441 contains ‚no hidden trigger‘ and Sir Jeremy Greenstock said it has ‚no automaticity‘.<hr /></blockquote>If you see my post (above), the phrase appears in an earlier resolution, and if you are right about it being an authorization, then eg8r is also right, in saying that 1441 is a continuance of that allowance.

The statements by those whom you've quoted seem to muddy the water. . .The argument would then reside between what is policy--that which is decided and published in UN Resolutions, or the comments of those who 'come after'? (In other words, which one trumps the other?)



========================

mickey2
03-21-2003, 02:37 PM
Resolution 678 is clearly about the invasion of Kuwait (SC resolution 660) as the breach of international peace and security that triggered Security Council powers under the UN charter. It does not constitute a general power for the use of force. Therefore it can’t justify the current attack.

Another very important point is that the terms of resolution 678 indicate the authorisation for the use of force is granted and monitored by the Security Council. It is inconsistent with the clear terms of resolution 678 and indeed the whole structure of the UN charter to argue one or more states could decide for themselves when and if the authorisation could be revived. If a single state simply has no rights to decide by themselves if a breach has taken place!

You have argued a breach of the ceasefire agreement in resolution 687 entitles member states to use force. The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law.

It is true that in standard Security Council style, all previous resolutions on Iraq are referred to in the preamble of resolution 1441, there is no paragraph that suggests UN member states may take "all necessary means" to implement the resolution. One has to take a look how 1441 originally planed. The original draft included :’ Decides that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq to the Council and the failure by Iraq at any time to comply and cooperate fully in accordance with the provisions laid out in this resolution, shall constitute <font color="red">a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations, and that </font color> ” ‘.
This paragraph was changed to explicitly include no automatism. Russia, China and France made a public statement on resolution 1441 on the day it was adopted, noting they could vote for the resolution precisely because it contained no "automaticity" in the use of force. This understanding was confirmed in the United States's and Britain's formal explanation of their votes.

IMO the strongest argument is that it is not up to a state but to the SC to decide if there was a breach and what actions should be taken if so.

eg8r
03-21-2003, 03:22 PM
Warren, I know you have posted the illegality of the President and his unconstitutional behaviour many times, but this is the first post that I came to, so I am posting it. This is a quote from another website. I did not really think you were going to search out and prove you lie, so I did it for you.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote warren:</font><hr> stand behind a president who violated international laws, and domestic laws, to acheive his final goal. <hr /></blockquote> I have already proved the international part in giving you examples of 3 out of like 10 resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Here is the proof of the US Congress voting and authorizing Bush to move forward.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote usatoday.com 09/19/2002 :</font><hr> Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has stated that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688";

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Further Resolution on Iraq".

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMS FORCES.

The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region. <hr /></blockquote> Congress voted and Warren is wrong. Here is the link to the original text http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-19-iraqresolution-text_x.htm if you move further up the text from were I quoted you will see that Congress referenced 688 and moved forward under that resolution. Resolution 1441 was not in existence at the time.

What sort other sort of Constitutional law did the President break?

eg8r

heater451
03-21-2003, 03:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickey2:</font><hr> . . .You have argued a breach of the ceasefire agreement in resolution 687 entitles member states to use force. The position that individual member states can respond to claimed violations of the ceasefire agreement between Iraq and the UN without the consent of the Security Council is inconsistent with the role of the council and is an unsustainable view of international law.<hr /></blockquote><font color="blue">It was not my intent to "argue", in the meaning of being for the use of force. My post was an effort to show how it might be viewed that way. . . .</font color>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mickey2:</font><hr>
IMO the strongest argument is that it is not up to a state but to the SC to decide if there was a breach and what actions should be taken if so.<hr /></blockquote><font color="blue">I know what you are saying (just as I realize that original argument points of this thread has shifted). In fact, I think that it's ironic that Pres. Bush is circumventing the U.N., in order to enforce the letter of the Resolution(s). This could be, as I paraphrase Warren (from somewhere in the thread), the start of bad policy for the future.</font color>


===================

MikeM
03-21-2003, 03:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Quit your whining about your free speech right now and support the military.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Are you serious?

MM

MikeM
03-21-2003, 04:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I disagree with your stance against patriotism and standing behind our President and military.


eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I asked this in another thread and I'll ask again here: Why is oppostion to the war or the President considered un-patriotic?

MM

jjinfla
03-21-2003, 08:57 PM
Well, Warren, you live in America and because of the constitution you are free to say and think whatever you like. I don't have any problem with that. Although I think your brain cells are short circuited. Can you imagine what would happen to you if you would be in Iraq as a citizen there and would spout out againt Sadaam. You might be invited to his palace where you would get a nice shower - acid type. Or maybe you would be fed into the shreader. Or maybe just a bullet to the head. If only half of the atrocities are true he should have been eliminated years ago. But the war seems to be going very nicely with minimum damage to civilians and civilian property. But I suppose that makes you mad too. And when the war ends and the price of oil keeps going down how will President Bush's so called oil friends make money. Seems to me they were better off before the war. Jake

Warren_Lushia
03-22-2003, 12:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Warren, you are too easy. I hope you are not sweating everytime you post. Maybe I am just not as upset with your posts, maybe this is because I already know where it comes from, who knows.

<font color="blue">i'm curious what you mean by you "already knows were it comes from"? i'm curious if you think you know how i feel about everything and already have me pidgeonholed as some "type" of person. </font color>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> where was i whining about free speech?!?!
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren:</font><hr> i will not stand behind him, even if the best case scenario for the war works out <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> There you go. I guess you are whining about it. You want to stand by what you believe inspite of all the intelligence in Washington. This my friend is your freedom of speech at work. You are doing it by a simple post on the board, but just for you, we will consider it the same as coming out of your mouth. Maybe I cannot see the bigger picture, maybe you can't. Time will tell.

<font color="blue">i fail to see how pointing out my objections to the way in which this iraq matter was handled, is whining about free speech? </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
don't you or anybody tell me i should stand behind a president who violated international laws, and domestic laws, to acheive his final goal. <hr /></blockquote> Hey big boy, with your big cussing mouth, when are you going to prove this crap. LOL There was unanimous approval in the Security Council over 1441. There is proof of the International side. There was a vote prior to that in Congress with complete bi-partisan agreement.

<font color="blue">it has been pointed out quite clearly by me and others how the usa violated international law. i ask you yet again, why did the usa try and get the UN's approval for this war if they already had it?! the fact remains, they did not have it by any of the security council resolutions, and 1441 was worded in such a way as to specifically not give the ok for the use of military force. the earlier resolutions you speak of have no bearing here, as this was about the situtation with kuwait being invaded. just read the resolution yourself. this is why the gulf war was approved by the UN. come on man, do you really believe this? do you really think the usa would have made such huge efforts to get UN backing if they already had it? its a clear and flagrant violation of international law, and any neutral expert will tell you the same thing.

as far as domestic law, congress has to meet and vote to declare war. yes, i am very well aware of the the vote you are speaking of, and it was against the constitution because they gave the president the authority to essentially declare war before it came to that point. you can not grant future powers to the president. and congress never had a vote in the final "war" decision.
</font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
there was never a popular vote in the usa,<hr /></blockquote> It happened just after the Bush speech. I do not remember who did the poll and yes some Americans did not agree with war but they did vote to stand behind the President.

<font color="blue"> i read that poll, i think it came from cnn, but a poll aint a vote. </font color>



&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i think i am thinking alot more about america than you. i am thinking of the soldiers who may return after a giant bloodbath and be treated like 2nd class citizens <hr /></blockquote> Alright, you got me there. Try not to think, it is clouding your mind. This time just do some reading and research. I wonder if you would be able to show some sort of chance there will be an American bloodbath. If you are worried about an Iraqi military bloodbath, then maybe you would like to head over there and be a human shield.

<font color="blue"> firstly, remember the above quote for my response to your next quote, ok?

the reason there could be a bloodbath on both sides, is because this war may ultimately end up as a ground war in the streets of bagdhad. this won't be about the tactical, precision strikes the usa can deliver from the air, but a street brawl. this is where the will of the iraqi people comes in, and whether they chose to see the us soldiers as comrades or enemies. this has been a subject of much speculation, but know one knows for sure.

if the iraqi people decide to violently oppose this invasion, a war in a city (ala stalingrad) will most definitely be a major bloodshed on both sides. this is a type of combat in which the field is much more level and the usa loses its advantage big time. of course, the usa would most probably be victorious is such a case (assuming it was pursued to that end) but the cost in terms of lives could reach the millions in such a circumstance (i'd say a ratio of 10/1 or so, so maybe 100,000 american soldiers and 1,000,000 iraqis, mostly civilians). the thing is, it really all boils down to the will of the people in bagdahd. this is a chance i'd rather not take unless it is the last resort, so please don't think i am not thinking of our brave soldiers. i am.</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
don't put words into my mouth, you bastard, i didn't put them into yours. you are going beyond the call of duty, later, warren.. <hr /></blockquote> Warren, would you cut out all the language and name calling. You showing immaturity.

<font color="blue">ok, on that point, maybe you are right. i guess you strike a nerve when you suggest that i would somehow be happy if we lost this war, or that my fear of major loss of life would somehow make me happy if it were to come true, and that i would come on this board with some sort of victory dance. what you and a few others fail to see is i am not anti-patriotic, nor do i seek any type of american failure. i really just wish we would execute our foreign policy in a legal manner, and stop pissing off the rest of the world. i want what is best for us, and i also want what is best for everybody else too. so i'll agree to leave out the profanity and name-calling, if you'll agree to stop saying i'm not patriotic, or that i will somehow take some satisfaction if some of the fears i have about this war become reality. i am hoping for the best, but disagreeing with the means does not constitute some of the comments directed at me. </font color>

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-22-2003, 02:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
but look up democracy in the dictionary and explain to me how the usa isn't a democracy. <hr /></blockquote>This is a case in point where you are looking for the information you want to see. Look into the Constitution or Pledge of Allegiance (maybe you might want to even say the Pledge out loud) and see we are a Republic.

<font color="blue"> ahhhhh ok. yeah, i guess i am guilty of seeking out what i want to find out. i guess when i seek the definition of "democracy" i am somehow doing something bad in your mind? btw, i don't think the pledge tells me the defintion of "republic" anymore than a song by any of my favorite bands defines what they are talking about.</font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
how much you think he can accomplish with his country full of weapons inspectors? <hr /></blockquote> I don't know. Since you have such insight with all you military buddies overseas you tell us. What has Saddam been doing for the past 12 years? This is a pathetic quote from you, if you really think the weapons inspectors have only been there for a couple months (I don't want to hurt feelings, this is just what I read from your post). There have been inspectors in Iraq for the majority of the 12 years. He has continued business as usual.

<font color="blue">of course i am aware of the presence of weapons inspectors for much of the last 12 years or so. where is your evidence of "business as usual" (meaning some sort of building of weapons of mass destruction)? its pretty damn hard to get much accomplished under those conditions. i am not convinced that he does not have them, but similarly i am not convinced that he does. perhaps a better route would be to pursue the man on his human rights violations to remove him from power. </font color>


&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
correct. so why, if we are so much better, and the saviors of the world, should we do the exact same thing, <hr /></blockquote> We are not being better, just different. The difference is that the US DID go to the UN and ask for approval. It was granted in Nov based on 1441.

<font color="blue"> NO IT WAS NOT. how many times do i have to say this before you will answer me. why would the usa be pursuing so fervently the approval of the UN, if they already had it?!?!? they didn't have it, they were seeking it, and when it became clear they were not going to get it within the timeframe they wanted (a president can only be president for 4 years at a time after all) they went against international law, and did what they wanted to do all along. this ain't really a matter of debate, it is fact. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
jeeze, you didn't put a slant on the above statement did ya?! once someone is murdered, i don't think they can "like" something or not. <hr /></blockquote> When i referred to the Iraqis embracing Freedom I am referring to those that are still alive. That should not have been as confusing as it appears it was.

<font color="blue">hell yeah, i knew what your really meant, but that is not what you said, you were speaking about how dead people would feel. it is similar to you taking an enormous amount of time to define the usa as a "republic" when that really wasn't even the issue at hand. you make your choice, you want to be literal about everything, i can be too. btw, the usa IS a democracy under the literal definition (i'm guessing by now you have looked it up but not quoted it because you know i am right). </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
germany became a military force under hitler, even though he was attempting genocide. <hr /></blockquote> If you want to call what I said a bunch of crap so be it, I have an easy heart, but I would hardly agree with the stuff you just puked out. Hitler "attempting" genocide. I am beginning to wonder if you have read anything in our history. To clearify what I really hope you were trying to say but failed so miserably, Hitler COMMITTED genocide. This is way off the topic but it might help to understand your position on the Iraqi situation. Go tell all those Jewish families that Hitler was only "attempting" to kill them. That sir is a bunch of crap. LOL

<font color="blue"> </font color> what you on about? genocide is the killing of a complete race or gender of people. hitler "attempted" that -- if he was successful, there would be no jews to even ask how they feel. if i go out in the street and shoot someone cause i don't like them and want to kill them, but they live, that is ATTEMPTED homocide. if i slash my wrists in a hope to die, but i live, that is ATTEMPTED suicide. hitler ATTEMPTED genocide by killing atrocious numbers of jews, but if his attempt was successful there would not be any left to even ask. sometimes you can be quite dense and focus on silly sematic issues.



&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
breaking international laws and its own constitution. <hr /></blockquote>This comes from the same paragraph as the prior quote and is once again another mis-truth. You have yet to prove this.

<font color="blue">yes i have, over and over again. this is really no longer a matter of debate, the only legal resources that will tell you that this is not true are those from the usa goverment specifically backing bush (others in the usa gov may tell you the truth) and which have nothing to gain or lose from their voicing of their expert opinion. not one has said bush complied with international law. not one. zero. nada. this aint even a matter of debate, this is fact. if you wanna argue the usa has every right to attack iraq, if you wanna say the usa has some sort of built in rights as the savior of the world, that is another to debate, </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i think alot of people are being entirely too optomistic about the will of the iraqi people. <hr /></blockquote> This part I definitely believe you could be correct, only time will tell.

<font color="blue">and unfortunately, we will now see if our roll of the dice, comes out the way we wanted. we have seen iraqi's surrender, in the middle of the open desert. what could they do?? we have not even began to ee what might happen in the streets of bagdahd. if the usa was so confident, they would march right in. but no, as of now they will wait to see the reaction. the usa hopes the iraqi people will turn against their president, but it will remain to be seen in bagdhad, don't falll for the bullshit you are seeing now, of course the iraqi's will lose battles in the desert, what happens when it comes to the city of bagdahd.. i guess we will see, and gamble our military on it,,</font color>

warren.. [list] [list]

eg8r
03-22-2003, 11:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
the fact remains, they did not have it by any of the security council resolutions, and 1441 was worded in such a way as to specifically not give the ok for the use of military force. the earlier resolutions you speak of have no bearing here, as this was about the situtation with kuwait being invaded. just read the resolution yourself. <hr /></blockquote> I have read it, and it is a continuace of the prior resolutions. Just another layer.

[ QUOTE ]
its a clear and flagrant violation of international law <hr /></blockquote> This is funny. You have "cleared it all up". I wish you were there with Tommy Franks and could just clear this all up for him. What a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
i am very well aware of the the vote you are speaking of, and it was against the constitution because they gave the president the authority to essentially declare war before it came to that point. <hr /></blockquote> Please prove this. Why don't you copy a part out of the Constitution that proves your point. Your first argument was that the President did not have approval of Congress and you said the President violated the Constitution. Now you are backpedalling faster than you can see, and you are now stating that the Congress violated Constitutional law. Prove something instead of speculating.
[ QUOTE ]
you can not grant future powers to the president. and congress never had a vote in the final "war" decision.
<hr /></blockquote> More pookie /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Congress did not need a final vote they already granted permission. LOL, you really are a piece of work. The stark difference between this administartion and the one prior to it, is that Bush makes decisions and does not look for a support group. Bush is a leader of the people. Clinton was king of gallop polls and anything else that resembled such. Everytime Clinton had to make a decision he needed the support of all the people around him first. He never made any decisions using his own mind. Clinton is a brilliant man, he just never had a spine. Bush does and he is showing it. Bush followed the rules and got the ok to do this from Congress and the OK was already in place before the Security Council unanimously voted on 1441. Everything was in place. Bush now has 52 countries that have joined his side.

Do you know what France is saying now...When the US finishes off the Baath Party and takes control of the country, he wants the UN to be in control of cleaning up the mess. Bull crap, it will not happen mark my words. The US and the UK finished what the UN did not have the guts to do, and the US will clean it up also.

[ QUOTE ]
so i'll agree to leave out the profanity and name-calling, if you'll agree to stop saying i'm not patriotic, or that i will somehow take some satisfaction if some of the fears i have about this war become reality. i am hoping for the best, but disagreeing with the means does not constitute some of the comments directed at me.<hr /></blockquote> Agreed, you are very patriotic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I do believe some of the comments should be directed at you though, remember you are the one that started this thread. Patriotic or not, I still firmly believe that when a country is at war, ALL citizens should stand behind the President as a unified country. When it is all over express your problems at the point when you go to the polls.

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2003, 11:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
btw, i don't think the pledge tells me the defintion of "republic" anymore than a song by any of my favorite bands defines what they are talking about.
<hr /></blockquote> Yes it does give you a definition of the US. It states plainly the US is a Republic.

[ QUOTE ]
i am not convinced that he does not have them, but similarly i am not convinced that he does. <hr /></blockquote> This is why you are not the one running the show. The powers that be are convinced. France even backpedalled and said, "When Iraq uses those weapons we will join the coalition in attacking Saddam." Even France has finally admitted to it.
[ QUOTE ]
how many times do i have to say this before you will answer me. why would the usa be pursuing so fervently the approval of the UN, if they already had it?!?!?<hr /></blockquote> I don't know if you were watching the TV a few mornings ago, but the US pulled any new resolutions off the table. After already having confirmed the US would receive the necessary 9 votes in the SC, they pulled it. This was all stated on CNN the morning it happened. The only reason they pulled it was because France vehemently stated it would veto. The US had the approval of the majority, France was just going to veto. Enough said. Even France admitted that the latest resolution would pass and they would veto.

[ QUOTE ]
the usa IS a democracy under the literal definition <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. US is a republic as defined by the Constitution. Like I said before, look where it will make you happy.

[ QUOTE ]
we have not even began to ee what might happen in the streets of bagdahd. if the usa was so confident, they would march right in. <hr /></blockquote> Funny that I read this today. I just finished watching Tommy Franks address the reporters. He said that in the march towards Baghdad, the US/UK troops are covering more ground towards Baghdad at a faster rate than what happened back in the early 90s. We have taken over the two airstips to the east of Baghdad and we have taken over the port cities along the Tigris and Euphrates. We don't even need Turkish airspace anymore. The march towards Baghdad is on right now and it is moving faster than ever before.
[ QUOTE ]
i guess we will see, and gamble our military on it,, <hr /></blockquote> While I personally do not look at it like a gamble, you chose the wording so we will go with it. I would rather say we are "gambling" with the liberation of the Iraqi people.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
03-22-2003, 12:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>


....Do you know what France is saying now...When the US finishes off the Baath Party and takes control of the country, he wants the UN to be in control of cleaning up the mess. Bull crap, it will not happen mark my words. The US and the UK finished what the UN did not have the guts to do, and the US will clean it up also.....

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah I heard that. What chutzpah. I didn't know that frogs had stones that big. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Troy
03-22-2003, 02:47 PM
See my diddy on "The Bunny and the Snake" -- http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=66866&amp;page= 0&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> I didn't know that frogs had stones that big. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
03-22-2003, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cnn.com:</font><hr> In addition to giving an update on the war, Bush also thanked Daschle, D-S.D, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for their resolution backing the administration. Daschle and Frist wrote the Senate version of the resolution, which was passed unanimously Thursday.

"He thanked us for that bipartisan support of the resolution, without dissent, saying we support our troops and our commander-in-chief," Daschle said. <hr /></blockquote> I guess Daschle is having a momentary change of heart.

eg8r

Harold Acosta
03-22-2003, 09:40 PM
A-phucking-MEN!

Warren_Lushia
03-23-2003, 12:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the fact remains, they did not have it by any of the security council resolutions, and 1441 was worded in such a way as to specifically not give the ok for the use of military force. the earlier resolutions you speak of have no bearing here, as this was about the situtation with kuwait being invaded. just read the resolution yourself. <hr /></blockquote> I have read it, and it is a continuace of the prior resolutions. Just another layer.

<font color="blue">no, its not a "continuance". when mentioning the prior resolutions the say "recalling", not saying they were still in effect. anyways, the latest resultion you quoted before 1441 (678 i think) was a declaration of cease-fire and a declaration of the matter remained seized. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
its a clear and flagrant violation of international law <hr /></blockquote> This is funny. You have "cleared it all up". I wish you were there with Tommy Franks and could just clear this all up for him. What a joke.

<font color="blue">do you think franks has a reason to try and say we somehow had the backing of the UN? </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i am very well aware of the the vote you are speaking of, and it was against the constitution because they gave the president the authority to essentially declare war before it came to that point. <hr /></blockquote> Please prove this. Why don't you copy a part out of the Constitution that proves your point. Your first argument was that the President did not have approval of Congress and you said the President violated the Constitution. Now you are backpedalling faster than you can see, and you are now stating that the Congress violated Constitutional law. Prove something instead of speculating.

<font color="blue">firstly i am not back-pedalling. the president did not have the approval to declare war, and congress can not grant him the approval in october to be used in march. and i believe (my personal belief) this vote took place to assure the iraqi's we mean business, and to show the UN we were serious. but it was under the assumption that the final say would be within the UN, and we never got the UN's approval. a dangerous precedent, and exactly why congress has no right to grant future powers to the president. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
you can not grant future powers to the president. and congress never had a vote in the final "war" decision.
<hr /></blockquote> More pookie /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. Congress did not need a final vote they already granted permission. LOL, you really are a piece of work. The stark difference between this administartion and the one prior to it, is that Bush makes decisions and does not look for a support group. Bush is a leader of the people. Clinton was king of gallop polls and anything else that resembled such. Everytime Clinton had to make a decision he needed the support of all the people around him first. He never made any decisions using his own mind. Clinton is a brilliant man, he just never had a spine. Bush does and he is showing it. Bush followed the rules and got the ok to do this from Congress and the OK was already in place before the Security Council unanimously voted on 1441. Everything was in place. Bush now has 52 countries that have joined his side.

<font color="blue"> everything was not in place. we did not have the authorization from the UN. we tried to get it, and when we didn't we just went ahead anyway. i have asked you again and again, and neither you nor anyone else has answered this question -- why was the usa so fervently trying to get the UN's backing for invasion of iraq, if everthing was already in place? the fact is, it wasn't, and we went against the UN. </font color>

Do you know what France is saying now...When the US finishes off the Baath Party and takes control of the country, he wants the UN to be in control of cleaning up the mess. Bull crap, it will not happen mark my words. The US and the UK finished what the UN did not have the guts to do, and the US will clean it up also.

<font color="blue">well ari fleisher (forget how to spell his name) disagress with you, and he is speaking for the president. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
so i'll agree to leave out the profanity and name-calling, if you'll agree to stop saying i'm not patriotic, or that i will somehow take some satisfaction if some of the fears i have about this war become reality. i am hoping for the best, but disagreeing with the means does not constitute some of the comments directed at me.<hr /></blockquote> Agreed, you are very patriotic. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I do believe some of the comments should be directed at you though, remember you are the one that started this thread. Patriotic or not, I still firmly believe that when a country is at war, ALL citizens should stand behind the President as a unified country. When it is all over express your problems at the point when you go to the polls.

<font color="blue"> this is very dangerous thinking imo, and i have explained over and over why i think so. </font color>

warren..

Warren_Lushia
03-23-2003, 12:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
i am not convinced that he does not have them, but similarly i am not convinced that he does. <hr /></blockquote> This is why you are not the one running the show. The powers that be are convinced. France even backpedalled and said, "When Iraq uses those weapons we will join the coalition in attacking Saddam." Even France has finally admitted to it.

<font color="blue">as far as i know france said "if" not when, and there is a big difference. another scary thing is if the usa was correct in its assumptions all along, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then they may use them against the usa. i don't think of this as a victory for the usa, in proving their ultimate point, if the result is mass slaughter. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
how many times do i have to say this before you will answer me. why would the usa be pursuing so fervently the approval of the UN, if they already had it?!?!?<hr /></blockquote> I don't know if you were watching the TV a few mornings ago, but the US pulled any new resolutions off the table. After already having confirmed the US would receive the necessary 9 votes in the SC, they pulled it. This was all stated on CNN the morning it happened. The only reason they pulled it was because France vehemently stated it would veto. The US had the approval of the majority, France was just going to veto. Enough said. Even France admitted that the latest resolution would pass and they would veto.

<font color="blue"> it is not "enough said" -- you still sidestepped around the question, and failed to answer it. if we had unanimous approval from the UN for waging a military campaign, why were we still trying to get it? if france already approved, why were we still trying to get their approval?! think about it for a second. i know why the usa pulled the resolution, cause it wasn't going to pass. so they just went on their own. your starting to sound really silly by claiming otherwise.

and if you wanna say the UN should undergo some reforms, i'd agree with you. the UN has simply not kept up to date since its inception, it was not evolving as fast as the rest of the world, and could be considered antiquidated. but before the usa went against the UN, it was at least the best thing we had going towards world peace and global security. what happens now remains to be seen.

as far as i know, france was handed a permanent spot on the security counsel based on pity, more than anything, after world war 2. but russia was also going to veto, the only member i am not sure about is china. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
the usa IS a democracy under the literal definition <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. US is a republic as defined by the Constitution. Like I said before, look where it will make you happy.

<font color="blue">perhaps "republic" may be more definitive or more precise, but the usa is STILL a democracy. look it up bro. </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
we have not even began to ee what might happen in the streets of bagdahd. if the usa was so confident, they would march right in. <hr /></blockquote> Funny that I read this today. I just finished watching Tommy Franks address the reporters. He said that in the march towards Baghdad, the US/UK troops are covering more ground towards Baghdad at a faster rate than what happened back in the early 90s. We have taken over the two airstips to the east of Baghdad and we have taken over the port cities along the Tigris and Euphrates. We don't even need Turkish airspace anymore. The march towards Baghdad is on right now and it is moving faster than ever before.

<font color="blue">well, i am glad your happy with the way things have gone so far, but it seems to be playing out more the way i envisioned. we claimed we have taken basra, but the fact is we just secured enough to get through -- a bridge and and airfield, while encountering significant resistance. rather than wage a bloody urban war, the usa marched through instead of seizing the city. the usa wants to save a potential bloody urban war for baghdad, if we had engaged in one in basra, and the world had seen what might be coming, if we engage in one in baghdad, it will be to late to stop. so far, things did not go as expected, there is significant resistance, and nobody even knows what is in store in bagdhad. so far the iraqi people i have seen embracing this invasion and dancing in the streets have numbered in the 10's -- not the 1000's, not 100,000's, not millions. we failed to take the one major city (2 million people) we encountered so far and met significant resistance there. don't know about you, but this doesn't look good to me. </font color>
&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
<hr /></blockquote>

warren..

eg8r
03-23-2003, 11:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
do you think franks has a reason to try and say we somehow had the backing of the UN?
<hr /></blockquote> Nope, what I think is, you are a joke if you think everything is all clear.

[ QUOTE ]
the president did not have the approval to declare war, and congress can not grant him the approval in october to be used in march. and i believe (my personal belief) this vote took place to assure the iraqi's we mean business, and to show the UN we were serious. <hr /></blockquote> OH this is beautiful. You are showing us your insight as to the underlying meanings of Congress authorizing Bush to use force. You really are very funny. Go back up to one of my other posts. I quoted what Congress voted on. Whether you read between the lines and come up with your perceived agenda oh well.

[ QUOTE ]
why was the usa so fervently trying to get the UN's backing for invasion of iraq, if everthing was already in place? the fact is, it wasn't, and we went against the UN.
<hr /></blockquote> Everything was in place. The US had Congresses backing and the UN. When the US went this final time to the SC they pulled back their resolution because France was going to veto no matter what. No sense in trying anymore. We had the backing of 9 of the 15 countries which was the majority and we would have received the backing except for France vetoing it all. I think this is a dead horse and you have done nothing to prove your side. You keep just posting your opinions and now you have back pedalled. First Bush was the on that broke Constitutional law, and now you said it was really Congress that did it when they authorized Bush to use force. Now you say Congress did not authorize him. Get your facts straight. Maybe you could quote something of value to prove you point. Obviously I don't care about what you think, and what you know seems to get skewed with your thoughts. I am not going to continue the kiddy fight with you about whether he had approval. Just go back and read all the resolutions and make you own opinion about what they say, you obviously do not care what they really say. When a resolution recalls the prior resolutions all those prior resolutions are in effect and this is the next layer. Read it how you want, but the truth is that is what it means. If 1441 was a brand new resolution and had nothing to do with the others, then the others would not be mentioned.
[ QUOTE ]
well ari fleisher (forget how to spell his name) disagress with you, and he is speaking for the president.
<hr /></blockquote> Very funny. I seem to think the President speaks for himself. When the time comes Bush will be the one making the speech and not Ari.
[ QUOTE ]
this is very dangerous thinking imo, and i have explained over and over why i think so. <hr /></blockquote> Well your explanation has been as weak as the Iraqi military. What a fool to choose dissention in a time of war. When war is going then it is best to show united front. You choose otherwise. You even aruge the choice. In times of peace or non-war activity it does not matter, voice your negativity. In times of war it does not matter what you think, we are already in war. Your associations to our situation now (uniting under our President during a time of war) to those of Germany during Hitlers regime is a disgrace. I have no more to say on this, we agree to disagree.

eg8r

eg8r
03-23-2003, 11:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
as far as i know france said "if" not when, and there is a big difference. <hr /></blockquote> Sorry, if France said "if" then they are admitting weapons of mass destruction are there. If France said, well we will not be joining this war because there are no weapons of mass destruction, then everyone on earth would believe that France did not think the weapons were there. You seem to think there is a chance Iraq does not have them. France does not agree with you. France is really saying, "Well, since Iraq has them he better not use them.".

[ QUOTE ]
another scary thing is if the usa was correct in its assumptions all along, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then they may use them against the usa. i don't think of this as a victory for the usa, in proving their ultimate point, if the result is mass slaughter.
<hr /></blockquote> This is a joke, and is in line with weak spines of the UN. If we follow your line of thinking, then maybe we should just let Saddam keep them. Then in a few months, years, or whatever, Saddam sells them to a terrorist and the terroris hits the US. Well, at this point our military did nothing to help save the US from attack. If we go in and remove them from Saddam, and risk the chance he will use them, then at least those weapons were not used here on innocent civilians. Our soldiers are here to protect us, if we sit back like you are requesting, then the soldiers cannot protect us. Sure there is the chance of the loss of life and I do feel strongly about that. You are not the only one with friends over there. I have family over there along with some dear friends. I do not want them to die. I also know, that they know their job is one of risk and they do it to continue the freedom we hold so dear.

[ QUOTE ]
if france already approved, why were we still trying to get their approval? <hr /></blockquote> We were not trying for their approval. We were trying to get them to do what they said they would do back in Nov. Enough said. I will argue no more. You have done little to prove you point except tell us opinions. Why don't you put a quote up or something to prove you side beyond what you have said.
[ QUOTE ]
i know why the usa pulled the resolution, cause it wasn't going to pass. <hr /></blockquote> This is a lie. If you knew this, then you should have called the President. We already had confirmation from 9 of the 15 countries. We did not pull it because we thought we would lose. We pulled it because we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that France would veto it. This is not a loss my friend.
[ QUOTE ]
but before the usa went against the UN, it was at least the best thing we had going towards world peace and global security. <hr /></blockquote> LOLOL. This is funny. The UN has done nothing to prove what you said. Heck, they still have not killed Milosevic. He is still on trial. Why would he be on trial. Everyone on earth knows he killed all those people but we still want to make sure. Get real, if you feel safe because the UN is there to keep peace, then you really need help. Just to remind you, the US under Clinton's rule bombed the heck out of Milosevic before he had UN approval. The UN did not approve use of force until NATO agreed to stop bombing. The UN is a joke and has done nothing towards removing dictators or those who offer terror.
[ QUOTE ]
perhaps "republic" may be more definitive or more precise, but the usa is STILL a democracy. <hr /></blockquote> but but but,. You are wrong. America is a Republic. Things might be democratic in nature but those individual things are not the whole picture. If we were a true democracy, then our President would be chosen on popular vote. It just does not work that way. The US is a Republic first. That is all there is to say.
[ QUOTE ]
but the fact is we just secured enough to get through <hr /></blockquote> Oh sure, that is all we have done. You must be reporting from over there. Do you really believe that is all that has happened. I guess the US has built up a wall and is blocking everything out. While travelling through the top is down on the humvees and everyone is getting a tan.

eg8r

03-23-2003, 02:45 PM
I love the fact that I live in a place where everyone has the FREEDOM to express his or her own opinions. Now I'm going to express mine. Saddam rose to power and retained his authority through a myriad of crimes against humanity too long to list. He gives refuge and aid to terrorists. Some of whom perpetrated the atrocities of 9-11 in which thousands of Americans lost there lives and a lethal blow was delivered to our already faltering economy. I am proud to live in a country that has the courage to remove such an evil man from a seat of power. If men like Saddam are allowed to go about their business and stockpile resources until they are ready to bring the war to our "cozy little homes", then all of us (including Warren) would not be afforded the FREEDOM to openly debate our government's policies. Some may have had their hands cut off for posting such messages under Saddam's regime.

Geoge Carlin: "We're a warlike people. We've got the only national anthem that mentions f**king rockets and bombs!"

God Bless the U S of A