Attack Iraq? Yeah ot Nay?

Posted on

Member Since: Apr 14, 2002

Hey,
What do you guys think about this whole Iraq thing? Personally I would love it if they went in there and wiped out the whole regime. That Saddam guy needs to be killed, just to be blunt. He`s gonna cause more trouble than what he`s worth.
He deserves to die too with all those people of his he killed. No offense to the liberal crowd, but if the`re wanting to wait till he does something horrendous before we act, they are freakin stupid.

2sense

[ Back to Top ]


Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 02:45 am

Bush just wants to go and attack something becuase he liked the way it tasted. Iraq, in all honesty, is not a threat at this time. Maybe bush wants to go take the land for the oil, I don't know. All I know is that I think attacking Iraq is a dumb idea. As far as Killing Sadaam, we can't, go back to High School Government. I think it was the Geneva Convention (But I'm not sure, I have been up all weekend and haven't taken Government in years). Anyway, there is a treaty stating that One country cannont assasinate another countrys leader. Now, We can get Bin Laden, he is not the leader of a country.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 04:50 am

I think Saddam IS a threat, and could be a major threat very soon. I also think if Desert Storm would have been done properly Saddam would not be in the picture right now. He needs to be outsted, though I do agree it's wrong for one country to impose it's beliefs on another, this guy is very close to having some serious weapons and is stupid enuf to use them.

I reluctantly say get rid of him.

Freeleance Producer/Engineer/Gtr
Member
Since: Aug 11, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 09:28 am

what happens when you cut off a wart? it grows right back.

this being said, if he was asassinated, there are a few more dictators in line for the job. it would also turn him into a martyr (sp?). we'd have to physically go in there, remove him, and establish a government friendly to democracy. that will cost money, time, and a few lives of our military.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 06:03 pm

Well how exactly is he a threat? The only reason bush wants to attack si because sadaam allegedly trained al queda members in Irq, and because Iraq is part of the "Axis of Evil" that is everyone who is not for the USA. Attacking Iraq will also cause more problems becuase it will encourage more extremists to become martyrs, meaning more terrorism.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 06:25 pm

How is he a threat, let's see first, he is a totalitarian person, he had the balls in invalde a neighboring country for it's oil, plus, give a person like that nuclear and/or chemeical weapons and I see him as a major threat on the global society at large.

Member
Since: Apr 14, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 07:28 pm

Maybe I came off pretty strong earlier, but that idiot gassed his own people. Anyone who does that is definetely a threat if he has nuclear weapons.
I just read on Yahoo that they have decided to allow the UN inspectors to return. Sounds a little fishy to me. Keep `em out till we threaten them with annihilation, then decide to let them inspect. The last few months has been plenty of time to allow them to hide a few thousand nukes in their caves.
I`d say that Bush has few more reasons that he wants to attack Saddam other than because he is linked to al-Qaida. Just little things like getting rid of a bloodthirsty and tyrannical regime who would love nothing more than to kill every American who has ever breathed. Thats all, just little things.

Eat Spam before it eats YOU!!!
Member
Since: May 11, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 07:42 pm

A short lesson on "governmentese"

Notice how all of the meetings regarding the reasons to attach Iraq have been very secret. Funny how many of the people who go into these meeting not supporting an attack on Iraq come up supporting the attack. Then even the President reiterates in a very sarcastic tone that at the end of the Gulf War it was discovered that Iraq was 1 year way from building a nuclear weapon if it could get it's hands on fissables. The president makes the point that that was 11 years ago and that inspectors haven't been in Iraq for . . .umm what 8 years? and that Iraq has been activly seeking fissables.

Do the math

It is very safe to assume that Iraq has nuclear weapons and has had them for a number of years. Why else would Isreal say that they would immeadiatly respond with nuclear force if scud missles were launched at their territory? Such retribution violates the Geneva Conventions.

I mean this is a very weapons motivated regime so much so that it built a cannon (and pointed it at Isreal) that was capable of launching objects into space!

It also executes an average of 2000 people a month.

Member
Since: Apr 14, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 08:10 pm

Thats something else I forgot to mention. When Tom Daschle even comes close to agreeing with George Bush then you know it must be pretty serious.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 08:40 pm

It just seems to me that this is the Cold War all over. It's an arms race, that's all. I mean, I don't claim to know it all about this issue, I'm only 18 and still taking government classes, but I personally do not think attacking iraq right now is the best answer to our problems.

Contributor
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 16, 2002 09:35 pm

sure it is.. the economy is in a slump.. were already fighting a "war on terrorism".. why not invade some country and jump start the economy again? worked last time around... and the time before etc.

/sarcasm.

seriously though. i think there are good intentions in the desire to remove saddam.. but i dont believe they are the REAL reasons motivating it.

in the end.. i guarantee it comes down to strengthening our economy and acquiring more oil for ourselves and other western countries.

Member
Since: Apr 14, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 01:27 am

Well whatever the reason(s), both democrats and republicans alike are saying that something has got to be done. And for the two to agree on something is extremely rare. I`d say theres something much bigger than a few oil wells.

Member
Since: Sep 21, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 01:46 am

I believe that the President is doing the right thing. Being a former military member, and a desert storm veteran, I have seen first hand a chemical weapons armory. I have seen it blown to bits. But i know that there are more sites that were undiscovered, nuclear, bio etc... The entire world needs to wake up and stand aginst this oppressor of human rights.

Just my two cents.

Cajunboy2k

Typo Szar
Member
Since: Jul 04, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 07:50 am

i, living in asia think that america should consider the global repurcutions(sp?) of its actions before going up in arms. coz a war on Iraq, will bring the Arab league in, North Korea, and thus disrupting the fragile global economy. and sending the entire world into a downward spiral. i know its a very sensitive subject, and theres no defenite right or wrong. Sadam, and all facists, and wrong doers should be put down. but the phrase, "fighting fire wiht fire" comes to mind. america just lashing out, with no real defenite cause doesnt make america any better than the regime it is opposing. i think, if the world orgs like UN, NATO etc. and even all the nations, and especially the Arab League see Iraq's supposed evil and Sadam's ways, which one of these will sit idely by as the wrong is deployed? but that would be work through the rigth channels. the US constitution states that no man shall be jailed with out a fair trial and due terms. should its foreign policy not be the same? this is just my opinion. sorry to all the americans and pro-americans in here, if i seem like jsut a naive asian

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 08:13 am

No you do not sound like a naive Asian, you have very valid points and concerns, thanks for sharing them.

SM7b the Chuck Noris of Mic's
Contributor
Since: Jun 20, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 07:52 pm

this place has been busy , well , i read some interesting oppinions. I personally , think something should be done , but I'm getting tired of cots and sand and ....ext ( sorry) . the word war has a much much bigger meaning to me now than when i was 17 and 18 , durring the gulf war , i was like bomb em yeah , now I'm patriotic as the next guy , I'm just seeing our resorces spread thin too thin , I'm a guy on the inside , and I hope nothing huge happens because in my oppinion we don't have the people , thanks to the prior admin , closing bases and down sizing , our reservists are tired and we can't activate more because each base has to pay and no one has money because all this tavel back in forth all over the glob cast buku bucks. My job is airtransportation , i do every job tha detales airport movement things so i go to other places and i can work right with delta so to speak , I handle movements and all that , our guys are stressed tired and want to see there fam ( some have not seen there 1st born ) I'm not trying to get all teary or lecture by any means but we either need to chill with iraq deal for now or pull people out of the all the places they're "not at" and send em home , even if it is back out .

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Sep 17, 2002 10:12 pm

Well put Geoff. I think you really need to come to Savage and suck some sud's down.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 18, 2002 04:35 am

Another thing bush needs to look at is the reprocutions of his actions from other countries, like it was stated before. Attacking Iraq will NOT be as easy as afghanistan was, and Iraq will have allies. I seriously believe that if we (America) Keep going at this like we are it will lead to another World War, but this time with a lot more losses. This time there will be stronger opponents, this time there are Nukes involved. Now I am not saying we need to sit idley by, not at all, but I don't think an offensive strike right now is the best option. But, I am not on the inside, I don't know whats going on inside the meetings in the white house.

Member
Since: Apr 14, 2002


Sep 18, 2002 09:45 pm

Yeah, these are good points from everybody. Maybe I should just go snipe Suddam myself. Save everybody alot of trouble.
Anybody wanna come with?

Member
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 05:40 pm

hey. sounds like all of you guys need to smoke a big fat doobie. if everyone smoked weed in this world. we would all be friends and peaceful.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 05:43 pm

I have smoked far more than my share of big fat doobies in life, the only reason it's peaceful is because everyone would be to lazy to anything about anything.

That said, it's been a while since my last doobie and I have done more in that time, then in my entire doobie smoking period. Not saying there isn't a time and place for everything, but I know few people who can keep it in it's time and place.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 07:53 pm

http://raisethefist.com/news/wire/----984932iraq.jpg

this picture says it all

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 08:15 pm

eh, sound like tree-huggin hippy crap to me ;-)

hehehe

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 08:30 pm

lol, well what can I say? I guess I'm a hippy.

Member
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 09:27 pm

cool. i have an idea. HOw about BOMBs filled with food? that would be cool. 1 minute they'll be searching for cover,a nd thenext it will be raining sadwiches and drink.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 09:55 pm

Hey stupe, that is the greatest idea yet. I think you should spam the government's email system with that one.

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 10:04 pm

"Hey, what's that falling from the sky?" "It's... It's a subway sandwhich! Thanks Jarred!"

Eat Spam before it eats YOU!!!
Member
Since: May 11, 2002


Sep 19, 2002 11:38 pm

wasn't a woman killed in afghanistan by an aid package that crushed her house?

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 20, 2002 04:54 am

Ya know zek, when I read this thread that was the first thought that entered my mind too. I remember that story, and the aid packages and the bombs were the same color as I recall so peeps didn't know if they were being bombed or fed.

Member
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 20, 2002 02:11 pm

actually db i was thinking more like bombs that exploded and caused damaged but had food in them. its the best of BOTH WORLDS! that way we'll do the damage we need to do while still showing our mercy. kind of like those commercials where a guy severely wrongs another, and then just turns around with a bright eyed smile and flashes a pack of mentos.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 20, 2002 02:16 pm

Oh, I know what you meant stupe, I was referring to what zek said.

Ya it sounds like a Mike Hard Cider commercial, doesn't it?

Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 23, 2002 01:22 am

the thing about this is, if sadaam thinks that he's going to get bombed and lose then he will do anything he can to get to us. You don't want to put a guy like this in a rock and a hard place. If he feels that he has nothing to lose, or everything for that matter, then he will have no second thoughts about launching over those weapons

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 23, 2002 04:40 am

Ya, the more I here about it, the more I think I am becoming opposed to taking a strike on Iraq, we could loose a lot of valuable allies, make ourselves look even more like bullies to the world...I dunno...

Member
Since: Apr 14, 2002


Sep 23, 2002 01:11 pm

Yeah, thats true. Thats the bad part about it. Actually, if Saddam was only hurting himself in this situation, I couldn`t care less what happened to that country. But there are alot of innocent people in Iraq that Suddam doesn`t give a hoot about. He just kills them like flies whenever he deems necessary. Thats what I don`t like about not attacking them. Alot of innocents will die if that maniac stays in power. He`s ruthless.


Cone Poker
Member
Since: Apr 07, 2002


Sep 24, 2002 10:38 pm

One thing to note: Even though sadaam disobeyed an order, genocide, gassed the turks, it was all fine and good to the US, we were still his allie through all that, but the minute sadaam disobeyed an order we got all pissy. He was good with the US throughout his violent rise to power and establishment of a dictatorship. They liked him because he was a model trade partner who didn't criticize the american way of global domination, he did many great things for his country, despite the numerous human rights violated. Then he stopped selling the US oil, and the media started looking for reasons to hate him.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Sep 25, 2002 05:02 am

fortunately you really don't have to look that far.

The fat one always watches us.
Member
Since: Nov 08, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 11:42 am

I just dug up this thread..... Wonder what you all think now as opposed to 2002

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 11:55 am

Glad Saddam is gone, and wish I knew more about the REAL situation as opposed to the CNN-promoted situation. Can't wait until a couple of friends get home so I can hear it first hand.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 02:12 pm

Oh gee, I wish this hadn't been dug up again...

I really am not taking a strong stance in either way except that I am against people who do take strong stances rather than evaluate each issue separately and really look at things without jumping to conclusions. We should all be willing to admit that there are things we simply do not know, and yet we should also be critical of what we do know and equally critical of those who are critical of what we know. Don't believe everything you hear that supports the decision to go into Iraq, but certainly don't believe everything you hear going against the decision, either. The problem arises when a lot of people fail to remember that second step (or first, depending on which you initially trust). Now, I suppose I may sound dangerously close to apathetic, but I'm not advocating blinding yourself to everything because formulating an accurate view of the situation is impossible. I just think we all need to tolarate (no... actually listen to) each other's opinions with honest consideration and in doing so possibly get a better picture of what's going on rather than forcefully impose our often blind viewpoints. Maybe that's too idealistic, but the least we can do is consider everything before formulating an opinion, and even then realize we may not be totally right.

But I agree with dB. From what I know Saddam being gone is a plus, and I hope to see democracy in Iraq soon. That would be awesome!

Member
Since: Nov 21, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 02:24 pm

www.dubyaspeak.com

gotta love our president.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 02:28 pm

Yeah, yeah, I am sure none of us here has ever stumbled over their words, had words taken out of context or just plain sounded dumb...it's only him...he never has been the greatest speaker...there were plenty others from all presidents, all politicians...and hell, I bet everybody has a good foot-in-mouth story.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 02:28 pm

Haha... I've got the desktop calendar :)

It is kind of stupid to make such a big deal about it, but I think he seems to take it pretty well. I agree, we all do the same thing, and he's gotten much better at speaking lately.

The fat one always watches us.
Member
Since: Nov 08, 2002


Apr 08, 2004 07:10 pm

I once said during a pool game i was loosing badly(billards flame), "maybe he'll have a heart attack and ill win" He got really angry (he was 30) turns out at 29 he did have one.... (he was at the bar drinking and smoking just the same.) carful what you say. and i agree db, if everything you say is recorded and analized, there's gonna be a lot of crap you'd "rephrase" im sure.

Eat Spam before it eats YOU!!!
Member
Since: May 11, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 08:42 am

I've been able to talk with a number of people who have gotten back starting in november with my trip to minneapolis. The first guy I talked to basically said he was embarrased of how the media was portraying things and he'll alway remember baghdad as being able to stick your arm out the window of the humvee and have mobs of kids running up to give you a highfive.

In january I found out that one of my friends from my unit who volunteered to stay on active duty (and had the required MOS's) was ...well... mostly in germany after losing part of her face in a roadside bomb attack in july.

Mid Feburary I was in a DARN's course with a couple of guys who jst got back and they said they had a great time and were lucky enough to occupy an abandoned facility with a small fleet of golfcarts which they (being reservists :) ) would drive instead of the humvees.

I will admit I havn't really examined these recient uprisings and they do have to be looked at as seperate events happening at the same time. The cleric though the most violent, to me doesn't seem as dangerous to the stability of the country as the Sunni uprising because we expect the area the cleric is operating to be the most difficult. I think the cleric will be out of the picture soon... but the Sunni problem is a cultural problem because they feel they were embarrassed by the presence of americans. I think there's two outcomes for that revolt in that either the Sunni's control their emotions and wait for the process to play out or they get stupid and rebel in which they will be further embarrassed if it has to be put down. My best guess as to the significance of these revolts on the scale of the country is that they are not quite insignificant... I didn't expect the Sunni revolt but the fahlujia(sp) area is like going to moscow... you really just have to wait for the local culture to to get sick of being held back by it's own decisions and gradually change... but that doesn't happen by isolating it but immersing it.

The other priece of information to look at is how normal these revolts are. Compaired to france Iraq is doing very well in the transition and development of it's national idenity. Even the US had armed revolts which were put down by atleast the show of federal military force...then the Civil War about 75 years later...which I think still holds the record for the largest continential invasion. When Germany starting finding it's national identity we had WW1 and WW2 England had plenty of revolts itself... Communist Russia had twice as many executions as the holocaust under Stalin and Capitalist Russia has Chechnia(sp?).

When ever any country radically changes what it is there are always revolts/violence... I would have to say Iraq is doing rather well.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 09, 2004 10:15 am

it's not exactly panning out to be the fairy tale it was supposed to be. iraqis taking towns by force doesn't give a lot of warm fuzzies when thinking about the consequences of handing over power on june 30. if that doesn't end up happening, expect a lot more to go down. of course it's nice to have saddam out of power, but we'll see who ends up replacing him. factor in all the people we've killed, all the money that is being dumped into this (that we don't have), and the fact that this war was started for political purposes and justified by a mini universe of lies, and this might end up removing another fascist from power (a little closer to home). john kerry won't be a whole lot better, folks.

maybe soon we'll learn that starting wars isn't even a halfway decent way to solve political and social problems???

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 10:20 am

There is no good voting option this year...so I asked my 6 year old daughter. She said to vote for George..."cuz he is a nice president".

George has gotten very trigger happy. I agree with the moves he has made thus far by going into Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am getting fearful of what he would do with another 4 years.

Kerry, well, any guy that promises to create 500% more jobs than there are unemployed people, and tells America that any company that outsources is a traitor, when his inlaws themselves have several oversees plants just can't be that bright.

They both scare me, then there's Nader...uh, I'll just leave that alone.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 09, 2004 12:31 pm

you can always write in for mickey mouse, dB.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 12:32 pm

True, and sadly thats probably a better candidate...

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 01:22 pm

Agreed.

Ignorance Is Strength
Member
Since: Nov 10, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 04:26 pm

"Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I was against going into Iraq from the beginning (and I stated it here on HRC) because we hadn't brought Osama Ben-Forgotten to justice and that Iraqi oil was an easy target that Bush's handlers had their eyes on for years.

Nope, Kerry isn't the greatest but this country needs to change direction and electing him will not be a cure-all but its a small step in the right direction. Our government has become too secretive and selfserving. Under Bush/Rove its more about paying off political sponsors, propaganda photo ops, turning a buck and not about we the people. The president is NOT the government.

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."
--President Franklin Roosevelt

Sorry for the rant but you started it TonyD.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 09, 2004 09:41 pm

Let the battle commence...

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 10, 2004 01:33 am

or don't...obviously people believe different things based upon their different perspectives, which we know are based upon a whole lot of very subjective things. no one is interested in starting any fights or anything, so let everyone have access to all the information they need to make their conclusions, and let it be so. we'll make peace with ourselves in the future regardless of how we think of current affairs on this date in 2004. peace to everyone.

Ignorance Is Strength
Member
Since: Nov 10, 2002


Apr 10, 2004 03:37 am

Absolutely correct Minkus....If I would spend as much time on music as I do researching politics I would have my 2 or 3 unfinished songs posted, the oil in my truck would be clean and I would be rich from a garage sale I've put off since the war started. Not to mention my wife would be speaking to me and I would probably remember my son's names. But I'm a political junkie and can't help myself because down inside I believe we're in deep trouble. Oops...see what I mean? There I go again.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 10, 2004 06:23 am

While I agree a well chosen person would be good for a change, I don't feel Kerry is the man at all, even asside from the fact I am not jiving with the basic liberal agenda in and of itself, a decent Democrat I would consider. At this point I would rather have Bush than Kerry, but, if a viable candidate would step out I would love to have another choice.

For some reason Kerry reminds me of Clinton. Good speaker, a bit of Charisma, but will probably do nothing.

Bring back Ross Perot :-D I wonder what that insane old dude would be like now!

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 10, 2004 09:16 am

well you know that perot never liked free trade agreements, so he would sound like the kerry that came out of the democratic primaries. also, i heard that ears and nose grow constantly as people age...

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 10, 2004 09:18 am

Minkus - That's great. That's what I hoped we could do when I was blabbing in my last post. I was trying to prevent an argument from happening, not encourage it (hence the rolling eyes). I probably shouldn't have said anything.

Emerson's Transparent Eyeball
Member
Since: Jan 19, 2004


Apr 10, 2004 11:10 am

I believe it's really a shame that the Republican establishment didn't want to see McCain nominated for Pres back in 2000. He, perhaps with Colin Powell as Vice, would have had maybe a bit more circumspection about throwing American troops into faraway places without proper analysis, since they've been there and seen the ugly truth of modern asymmetrical warfare. That said, the political machine grinds even Presidents into compliant dust anyway ... I'm a guy that has beliefs which would fall both in conservative and liberal areas, and that would like to see someone really shake things up rather than feed us pablum from a self- serving media/business/political complex. I dont believe there's really that much difference between the two candidates. Neither will do anything to piss off those who really run the country, the lobbyists and big business interests. Without their support, you can't get elected anyway. I also believe that many poltitcicans get into public service with good intentions, but by the time they are in a position of real power, they owe too many people and have been co - opted by the political establishments. There are really only two parties; where else are you going to go if you need real money for a campaign?

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 10, 2004 11:31 am

this moral compromise on the part of the majority of successful politicians is pretty much the basis for the promotion of reasonable campaign finance reform. it seems like once people stop being afraid of arab terrorists and stop thinking that the end of the world is coming soon, they will have the capacity to see exactly what you stated, drayburn. once that happens, i would expect enormous pressure on state and federal congresses to enact real campaign finance reform, whether big money likes it or not. however, this is why we have seen manufactured enemy after manufactured enemy promoted by governments all throughout history. it is a soap opera with the underlying purpose of keeping peoples' attention away from that which allows the elites to mass capital. where is the money taken from? middle classes and peasant classes. you know that ordinary people are willing to slice fractions of a cent from every transaction a bank makes like in "office space", but it's at a different level completely when 25% of the pentagon's budget cannot be accounted for. imagine if that money went to schools or public campaign finance or health care or anywhere other than up in smoke. things like this are what we need to rationally discuss and solve as a nation.

Member
Since: Apr 03, 2004


Apr 10, 2004 02:00 pm

I have a double edged response that no one might really like. Our military should evacuate the civialian out of the terrorist centers in the Middle East, drop a ground missle and when they are through rip out all the oil wells and leave the Middle East alone since the blood was shed for oil to begin with.

The fat one always watches us.
Member
Since: Nov 08, 2002


Apr 10, 2004 06:33 pm

I fought at one time in my life for this country. I am a VFW, I am proud of my medals, my friends, and myself. I hate. I hate. I hate when people get away with things. I hate injustice. I know doing away with sadam was good. i think afaganstan was good. and im ok with bush. but i dont want him to lead anymore. Kerry, well he doesnt seem all that either. The first president that says, world. Thats who i want. World. but wont goto war right off. I think bush went right off cause he thought as an almost elected president he had to. We americans wanted retribution, thats true, still do. but it appears to me that sadam thought he was all that, but his folks had been lying to him since 1991. Muslim beliefs arent crossing christian, or jewish, or mine for that matter. People are crossing tonyd's beliefs. and these are desperate people, unless much more money, and time are spent to teach, to help, and to provide for these people (yes the same ones that are trying to kill us) it will be a loss. None of this makes sense.. Sorry.
Ill sum it up- dont want bush, weary of kerry, need to stay in iraq and afganastan, more money and aid to both countrys. and only a world government can fix this stuff, not america and a few allies policing the world

Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003


Apr 11, 2004 01:46 am

wow i didn't know we were allowed to have political discussions here.

i still think clark was the only man worth electing. clark was 'world.' when he won oklahoma i was so excited. he was the reason i registered to vote--for the first time ever. as a democrat. i don't consider myself one, but i did it specifically to vote for clark. if he were running as a republican, i would have registered republican. now i'm stuck with a democratic voter's card. am i going to vote for kerry? don't know yet. i'd rather not vote at all. i think either man is a mistake. kerry embodies everything i disliked about bush back in 2000. he seems like an empty vessel, a windbag. a 'presidential' tone of voice--it seems like it's all he's got going for him. gag. the last thing i want to see is another guy who merely goes through the motions of acting presidential.

Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002


Apr 11, 2004 10:19 pm

Pardon my French and ya all can blast me after I say this, but Im gonna say it anyway.

John Kerry is a lying, worthless, backstabbing, turncoat, idiot. A vote for him is basically a vote to turn this country into a big pile of debris.

I wish there would be a viable alternative in November, but there wont be. Why, becuase too many people will still be sold or snowed and will cast their votes blindly.

Peace

Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003


Apr 12, 2004 12:45 am

Hmmm, I think I agree with a little bit of everyone on this one. But as far as Iraq goes, I think we never should have gone (I'm cool with Afghanistan).

But here's the real deal. I really don't feel very comfortable with Kerry. He reminds me a lot of CA's old governor Gray Davis, but with a bit more charisma. Basically I think they are both political shills who don't really have a mind of their own, but would rather change their agenda to try and further their own career. At some point you gotta stand for something. Right?!

But... with that being said, I completely loathe George Bush and his administration. They have made so much bad policy both nationally and internationally, it drives me mad. The Iraq thing is bad enough, but don't cut taxes and increase spending, and if you're gonna cut taxes, at least can the middle class (and lower class) get a little bit. Damn! And that's just the tip of the iceberg, but I'll quit before I get too worked up.

So, it looks like I'll be voting Kerry, just cuz it's not Bush. I still think Dean would've been cool and maybe even Clark. My main two issues are fiscal responsibility and environment, but almost every other issue gets tied into fiscal responsibility. Me stop now.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 12, 2004 02:48 pm

I wanted Joe Lieberman. How can you not like Joe?

Member
Since: Apr 12, 2004


Apr 12, 2004 08:47 pm

I thought the whole issue was about WMD, now that it's not found it seems to me that it has become an issue of freeing up the Iraqies from bondage. I don't think that the entire world population are idiots Fred

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 13, 2004 02:10 pm

Yeah, I always thought there should be more emphasis on the humanitarian cause rather than the weapons, which I think more people would have stood behind, anyway, so I don't know why Bush made such a big deal out of WMD thing, although it certainly appeared that that was also an issue as it has been for quite some time.

Member
Since: Sep 23, 2003


Apr 13, 2004 03:02 pm

you can always do a write in on the ballot. I was pro clark myself, rep the ARK. the reason I liked clark is because he was on an international level, without being a politician. He's made humanitarian decisions, without political goals. needless to say I admire anyone who was REALLY in the armed forces.

but the past is the past.

I'll vote for Kerry in november, just 'cause I don't like bush. I don't think he's evil or anything, just that he sucks as a president. That's what's great about this country(US). we can try someone out for four years and if we don't like 'em we can toss 'em (even before that if we want). if the guy we vote for doesn't do it, well we can toss him too.

As far as Iraq goes, we're there now, so there's no use talking about how we didn't want to go there in the first place. We need to take care of business. If we left now, what would happen to the people? the majority or Iraqies, have the same concerns as americans. they want to live in peace and happiness w/ thier families. if we left, the only thing that the US would have accomplished is to change Iraq into Afghanistan. one dictator into 20 warlords and umpteen more Osamas.

I think we have no moral choice about Iraq. But we do have a choice in November, to be proactive in making sure that no one makes a choice like Iraq for the next 4 years.

I'm not even going to get into the economics issue... oK maybe just a little. all I can say is this Admin stinks. They think that just because the top 10 percent gets richer and increases our GDP, that the economy is getting better.

I have vented...



Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 13, 2004 05:07 pm

definitely don't want to offend anyone...if you feel offended by what i'm saying, please look at it from another perspective. none of this is said with the intention of being condescending or elitist.

Quote:
if we left, the only thing that the US would have accomplished is to change Iraq into Afghanistan.


you said it right there. we're still in afghanistan, but it has still turned into "afghanistan" anyway. history has taught us that when one state invades another aggressively, the aggressor is eventually tossed out regardless of how powerful they are. world war II is cited as a refutation to that type of statement, but there's a big difference between picking up the pieces after annihilating actively expansionist and imperial ambitions of fascist states and the establishment of an arguably illegitimate government in what was essentially a war to colonize another nation-state. the only reason that most of us americans don't see our actions as imperial is because we feel like we are responding to threats...we are afraid. we live in a culture of fear, so we end up waltzing from the grasp of one manufactured enemy to another. people like dick cheney really do get rich off of war, so it's in their best interest to promote this. it's not the first time people's ethics have been blinded by greed.

iraq is going to become what it will whether we leave or not...the timetable is simply different. many of these people want american invaders out of their country, and they're willing to assemble militias to prove it. we opened pandora's box, so the only thing that will change if we stay longer is the number of "coalition" members dead and the number of people killed by coalition members. this is why international law is a good idea, even if some people perceive (or create to suit their own ends) a threat that "requires" pre-emptive action.

i'm sorry porp, but you have to understand that killing people for a humanitarian cause is an oxymoron. it implies an "ends justify the means" philosophy that has time and time again been proven to obfuscate the truth and is self-defeating when trying to accomplish what you were originally intending to do. you can't spank kindness into a child. you can't kill people to save them.

Member
Since: Sep 23, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 01:26 am

OK mink, let's just say forget it and pull all coalition troops out of Iraq. Let's leave Iraq without any kind of real infrastructure. let's leave the fate of the country to the OTHER people with guns.

I'm not saying that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place... I'm not even saying that this country needs to end up looking like ours. I'm just saying that we need to finish what we started, and insure that the normal people in Iraq, that didn't enjoy being oppressed, that don't want a "Holy war", can have the opportunity to not do these things.

we in america can say, "make love not war", for the militias in Iraq it's , "your either with us" or we blow you up too.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 02:06 am

if the violence continues to escalate, it won't matter whether we're there with our guns or not. don't forget that to the vietnamese, the vietnam war was just their own civil war. the difference is, we didn't start the vietnamese civil war. we are starting the iraqi civil war.

i agree that we should finish what we started, but i have been very doubtful from the beginning that what we want to do is attainable. to me, the most likely scenario that comes out of this is that eventually the american people get fed up and the troops get pulled out, much like 1975. people are getting very worried about their husbands/wives, kids, friends getting killed for a pointless, political war. we're watching our infrastructure crumble while we dump money into the military to fight boogey men. as time goes on, that will override our "resolve" to see this through.

i wish i could be a little less pessimistic, but i can't see a scenario in which this pet project of ours will work.

Member
Since: Sep 23, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 03:29 am

so, basically, pull out now because there is no hope... I understand that people are worried about their folks. I'm worried about them too. but why do you think people join the armed forces? this isn't the first Fd up war we've been in. soldiers knew what they could potentially get themselves into when they joined. I HOPE they didn't think that they could live off of tax payers money, get free educations, lodging, food, clothes and that they could choose not to fight when they didn't agree with policy. and from what I hear from a coupla friends, one in Iraq and one back from afghanistan, the soldiers aren't pessimistic about the biz. THEY WANT TO KICK SOME A$$ because that's their job. That's what they're trained to do, and they do it well!

The reason we SLOWLY pulled out of vietnam is because politicians became worried about their careers, not because they were worried about the troops. the whole time we're back here putting pressure on the pencil pushers, the pencil pushers are holding back on our boys and girls in Iraq, second guessing themselves. and the thing is, even if we get the Gov to think about abondoning Iraq, it won't stop all at once... We'll keep troops there without maximum support, and even more of our folks will get killed.

We're not fighting against a movement, as with communist vietnam. we're fighting against thugs with guns... about the same as in my hood(slighty smaller scale). and the number of casualties doesn't even come close to vietnam. People need to remember that when you fight a war for something, some people may die. The original cause, WMD, might not exist, but we've created a whole new cause, which is very evident.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 10:32 am

hey i'm going to send you an e-mail so that we don't have to go back and forth on this thread.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 10:34 am

Actually, keep going back and forth, I am finding it interesting.

Personally, I think just pulling out would be irresponsible, but at the same time, "winning" is not possible...it's a conundrum if there ever was one.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 10:53 am

ok thanks dB...as long as it's cool.

do you know any soldiers personally? all of my friends who are in afghanistan or iraq will say things about how they knew what they signed up for in front of most people, but when i get one on one with them and ask how they're really feeling, they are freaked out that their lives have been swept away by post-9/11 american militarism. a lot of people have been talking about how this war is just or how we have to "stay the course", but these words really are empty. if people really believe in making this cause happen, we would see a lot more of them joining the forces. if you don't feel like jumping into a terrible situation, imagine if you were in the reserve, yes perhaps to earn college tuition (not an invalid reason, in my opinion), and all of a sudden your life changes...you're getting shot at, watching people in your company getting obliterated by roadside bombs.

it doesn't matter if the casualty count is as high as vietnam. 60,000 americans dead, untold tens of thousands rendered incapable of leading normal lives isn't acceptable at all.

yes, the politicians like nixon (originally elected on the promise that he would de-escalate vietnam) really never cared about the americans being put in harm's way. that sort of detachment is seen again today, and it's nothing new. getting out of vietnam was a much slower process. it involved steadily growing protests (people who were both concerned about welfare of americans/vietnamese and morons who wanted to be on a side, who would spit on a GI for being in vietnam), and things like the release of the pentagon papers. public opinion in a democracy really is a fragile thing, and seeing body bags come home (not on TV this time around) and talking about 10 years of involvement in iraq to make sure it's stabilized will not serve to give people the "hope" they need.

we were not given a realistic estimate on ANYTHING about this war before it started. supposed to be about WMDs, we'd be in and out of there, they would rain flowers and praise upon us. it was a pipe dream of a few people who knew how to take a whole country along with their twisted ambitions. if we would have had more realistic predictions on iraq blasted across clear channel airwaves instead of limbaugh and hannity and all the other false prophets of our time, i think the people who would have wanted to start a war would have been a very small minority.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 11:02 am

Yes, I do know a few soldiers personally, the number is getting less and less as I get older, but right now a friend of mine was just shipped from Guantanomo Bay (sp?) to Afghanistan, and he said it is a shithole. That aside, of the few others I know, most of them have stories like zek stated above above people high-fiving them and such.

As far as somebody just their to earn tuition...yes, that is a valid reason, but it does come with a price. Several of my friends ended up in the same situation right after high school and they landed themselves in the Desert Storm...and come to think of it, my friend that just went to Afghanistan was also there.

Bottom line for me is that, of course, I feel horrible for the people that have to go there. However, if they signed up for the military just assuming they wouldn't go to war that was foolish on their part. Last time I checked the whole purpose of the military was defense and offense. That may sound insensitive, but it is true.

The comparison to vietnam can only be made by political or emotional standards, not at all by the toll of the war itself...it's incomparible.

All that said, I do agree with a lot of what you said, but I don't think just up and leaving after we destroyed their country is really a smart thing to do, at the same time, forcing a gov't on people that don't want it is kinda stupid too.

OK, thats my piece, I'll back out now...

Member
Since: Dec 16, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 11:28 am

"For some reason Kerry reminds me of Clinton. Good speaker, a bit of Charisma, but will probably do nothing."

Hmmm, if 'doing something' means sending the troops in all over the place then maybe doing nothing is a better option! Funny how Bush can 'act' decisively when it comes to invading Iraq, but on climeate change and global warming (arguably the biggest threat) he does nothing and worse, renages on the agreements Clinton had set up.

I'm in the UK, I was against the war, but I gave Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt because I seriously thought they had information about WMD which they couldn't tell us all about, therefore I trusted them. I realise I was wrong now to trust them, there were no WMDs and Bush went in to Iraq to settle old scores and get the oil flowing. Also, post Sept 11th, you can't fight terrorists with a conventional army no matter if you have the best army in the world, but you CAN fight the conventional Iraqi army, so that's what they decided to do. The Iraqi army was a surrogate for the elusive terrorists.

My preditiction, for what it's worth, is that once the US pulls out there'll be a great period of internal chaos and factional fighting. Eventualy a new 'strong man' will appear (might take years), probably a fundamentalist cleric, no democracy, back to square one, and it was all for nothing. I really hope I'm wrong. It's all so sad.

If only Bush put as much effort as he has done in the war against iraq into solving the Israeli/Palestine question then a lot of the causes of the hatred of the US by these people would start to decline.

If only those Florida votes had been properly counted, who knows...

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 12:20 pm

good call on the israeli/palestinian deal, glynb.

dB...it definitely is a big quandary. i think articles like this are funny:
story.news.yahoo.com/news...ru/cutandrunnow

relatively extreme in his use of language, perhaps right, perhaps not, but definitely asking for criticism.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 12:27 pm

Quote:
If only those Florida votes had been properly counted, who knows...


argh, I hate to even think about it...

Yes, Bush's lack of interest in environment does bother me, but then, I think, like many things, a lot of the "facts" and statistics of what is affecting what and how much is distorted by both sides involved...it obviously should be a concern, it is mother earth after all, but I fail to see the horrific "facts" spewed by many of the activists...

War sucks, I hate it, but I also hate dictators raping and killing their people and threatening their neighbors...

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 04:14 pm

Quote:
i'm sorry porp, but you have to understand that killing people for a humanitarian cause is an oxymoron. it implies an "ends justify the means" philosophy that has time and time again been proven to obfuscate the truth and is self-defeating when trying to accomplish what you were originally intending to do. you can't spank kindness into a child. you can't kill people to save them.


Perhaps that is true in this case (We'll see... Or maybe we'll never really know), and I totally understand what you're saying, but I think that that is quite a bit of a generalization if you think about it. The idea is to kill the people who are killing the people you want to save, not kill the people you want to save.

Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003


Apr 14, 2004 05:08 pm

you're forgetting about "collateral damage". we killed tens of thousands of iraqis to win the initial phase of the war, and iraqis hold america responsible for the sanctions and desert fox bombing campaigns which killed around a half million people during the 90s and up to the 2nd gulf war.

Emerson's Transparent Eyeball
Member
Since: Jan 19, 2004


Apr 14, 2004 08:00 pm

Part of the problem I have with the whole conflict is that the govt applies different standards to different countries. This may seem obvious, but if you consider the human rights abuses in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (laughable name if ever there was one), where entire cities have been uprooted by rival factions from within and by supporting armies from two other nations nearby, one has to wonder why we aren't "liberating" these people as well. The suffering of innocent civilians is horrific, yet little is being done to help them by any of the international community, let alone the US. Is it a question of resources? Perhaps. Is it a question of strategic position or lack thereof? Probably. Is it becasuse they really have nothing to offer us in terms of natural resources or commercial markets? I would hope not, but one has to wonder.

The Saudi Arabian govt is corrupt. The royal family skims literally billions of dollars off the top of the Saudi oil trade. The press is routinely censored, and Amnesty Intl has plenty of reports of human rights abuses in the name of state security or protection of the govt. Despite this, they are considered allies. Is this becasue they are less bad than the rest, or because they are good? If they did not have a wealth of oil which they are willing to sell cheaply to us, it is doubtful our relationship with them would be the same. THe Saudi population realizes this, and is not content with the situation. It is not a coincidence that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

If the US is going to act as policeman of the world, it cannot claim to hold the moral high ground when it consorts with governments who are corrupt, nor can it apply different standards for action on behalf of oppressed peoples. The internatinal community and the UN do not have a perfect system- far from it- but the moral weight of the entire UN deciding on a course of action is far more than that of the US and a couple of browbeaten friends.

If you're going to go it alone, make goddam sure you're right.

a.k.a. Porp & Mr. Muffins
Member
Since: Oct 09, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 08:12 pm

Minkus, I know (Although I'm not sure where those numbers came from -- Either of us could be misinformed). I wasn't even really talking about Iraq or any other war, I'm just talking about the concept of saving people through military action, which you're saying is an oxymoron.

Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Apr 14, 2004 08:48 pm

Quote:
Part of the problem I have with the whole conflict is that the govt applies different standards to different countries.


Ya, and those standards are set by who greases who's palms with what...which is sad...

Hello!
Member
Since: Jan 12, 2004


Apr 16, 2004 07:45 pm

I think the end result is what we all wanted.

The way it all panned out was less than ideal, innocent people on all sides died. But the world has been rided of an awful dictator...

This must be good!

Coco.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.