Protesters rally against war

[sbp]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030118/ap_on_re_us/anti_war_protests_21

WASHINGTON - Protesters rallied by the thousands in the bitter cold of Washington on Saturday and in capitals worldwide in a passionate show of dissent against war with Iraq. The cry "No blood for oil" echoed from America's National Mall to the streets of Pakistan.

A rally outside the Capitol, followed by a march to a naval yard, anchored the demonstrations and brought spirited masses together to declare America the "Rogue Nation," as one sign put it.

"We stand here today, a new generation of anti-war activists," Peta Lindsay from International Answer, the main organizers, exhorted the national rally. "This is just beginning. We will stop this war."

Festive face paint adorned some in the crowd but wool hats were pulled down low and parkas were closely gathered against temperatures that edged up from the teens. Buses idled with heaters on and protesters occasionally darted inside for a warm spell before rejoining the rally.

"We don't want this war and we don't want a government that wants this war," said Brenda Stokely, a New York City labor activist.

A sign demanded, "Disarm Bush"; the crowd chanted, "No war on Iraq."

Activists invoked the nonviolent legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. on the long weekend that marks the civil rights leader's birthday, and booed President Bush, who was at Camp David, Md.

"Mr. Bush hung Dr. King's picture up in the White House last year but he need to hang up Dr. King's words," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a Democratic presidential candidate.

"In Iraq today there are weapons inspectors, but here on the west side of the Capitol are the moral inspectors," he said, referring to a bulk of the demonstrators. "We're inspecting the immoral policies that said, 'No, we can't find the weapons in Iraq, we want to go to war.'"

As with any big Washington rally, the main cause made room for other causes.

"Free Palestine" was one of them. Racism and genocide were others.

"The underlying motives for this government's actions have always been greed and racism," said Moonanum James of United American Indians of New England.

"In the spirit of Dr. King, in the spirit of Crazy Horse," he said, "no blood for oil."

A major demonstration also was planned in San Francisco, and activists elsewhere. For many, the imperative was to come to Washington.

In Lansing, Mich., several hundred people met at a church before marching 20 blocks to the state Capitol. "It's just great enthusiasm here, and a great spirit of peacemaking," said the Rev. Fred Thelen from Cristo Rey Catholic Church. Signs said: "Peace is Patriotic" and "Iraqis are not evil."

Demonstrators also staged peace rallies worldwide, events that typically drew hundreds or fewer.

But 5,000 people marched through downtown Tokyo, carrying toy guns filled with flowers and wearing face masks that parodied Bush. The crowd, made up largely of students and laborers, was orderly.

Larry Holmes, speaking for organizers of the Washington rally, said protesters everywhere sense war is close.

"It seems like it has a momentum and a sense of inevitability, and so we're rushing against the clock," he said. "So as they send the troops there and surround Iraq, we're sending the troops into the streets of Washington, D.C., so to speak."

Three dozen people turned out by the Vietnam War Memorial to show support for President Bush's policy on Iraq and offer a contrary voice to the blitz of demonstrations.

"The protesters don't understand the threat" of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, said Scott Johnson, 55, a Navy veteran from Minneapolis. "It's a war of liberation for people."

Police said they had been assured the main rally and march, from the National Mall, around the Capitol, past Marine barracks and to the Washington Navy Yard, would stay peaceful.

Overseas, 60 protesters in Hong Kong shouted, "War, no," and in Pakistan, the familiar refrain "No blood for oil" rang out — a refrain that accuses America of wanting to attack Iraq only to control its oil wealth.

Several hundred people tried to march on the U.S. consulate in Lahore, but Pakistani authorities held the crowd back. Six were allowed to deliver an appeal to American officials to spare Iraqis from war.

More than 400 New Zealanders demonstrated in Christchurch. In Moscow, a few hundred people agitated outside the U.S. Embassy in a protest organized by a branch of the Communist Party. People turned their backs to the building, and signs called the United States a "Global Cannibal."

In the Syrian capital, Damascus, thousands marched with a message that was not all about peace. Many cried, "Our beloved Saddam, strike Tel Aviv," in celebration of Iraq's missile thrusts against Israel during the 1991 Gulf War and in hope Saddam would strike again. In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians rallied under the same slogan.

In Washington, demonstrators hoped the weekend protests and more ahead would win over an American public that is unsettled by the prospect of an Iraq war yet supportive of Bush's leadership.

[ProMinx]

I'm thinking about going down to the Anti-war rally outside the Los Angeles Federal building with signs that read "Stop the war on America. Shut up the protesters." or write "Honk if you support the war." on the protester side of a sign and "Honk if you like cookies." on the street side. God, I hate those protesters. This war isn't about oil, you bloody one-dimensional pricks. Think this through. A mad man has nukes in his possession and is actively seeking to get more. He also has a vendetta against our nation. I say demolish the country, destroy the nuke, and blow the guy's F-ing head off. S-t, I'll do it myself if no one else wants the job.

ProMinx

[Cantacuzene]

Saddam has nukes Promix? I was unaware you were a weapons inspector and somehow know everything he has.

[TERRIBLETOM]

I like the slogan "Peace through superior firepower".

[NullUnit2000]

[i]A mad man has nukes in his possession and is actively seeking to get more.[/B]

Yeah, I believe his name is GW Bush. Why don't YOU think it through. Who's starting this war anyways. How many of Dubya's old Texas oil buddies are drooling on themselves at the thought of being able to take over Iraq's oil wells. We know for sure N. Korea has nukes and the ablity to use them, but are we invading, or even threatining to invade. No, because they have no oil.

GW is a transparent prick. There are far more economic reasons for this war than political ones.

[blueindian]

yup, i wanted to go to that protest, but it didn't work out. i'm glad to see people protesting. if we get enough of it, perhaps 'ole dubya will ease up on his war mongering a bit.

[Grimm]

I have not been to any of the protests, but I want to chime in to support them. The protesters against this war are the true patriots. They are doing as their concious dictates and legaly protesting against the United States showing agression to a smaller nation. This is only going to get us into trouble with the few middle eastern countries that don't hate us. Oil prices will skyrocket and Dubbya's oil industry palls will make even bigger fortunes.

Everything he says and does is to make his cronies more money. He is doing this at the expense of the nation. I would rather have Clinton back, and i really, really hated Clinton.

[molecularfire]

Ok, first of all let me say that I do support the anti-war protesters. I actually agree with going to war with Iraq, but as far as I'm concerned, they have a right to say what they want as long as they keep it non-violent (which they are).

Now... why do I support going to war with Iraq. Simply put, Iraq is a threat to us. They would attack us (they definitely would attack our allies in that area) if they could. Leaving an enemy in a position where they could someday get back at you is IMO conceited to the extent of foolhardiness. Now... do I think Bush's intentions are honorable in this... no. I'm not that stupid. But, Iraq has shown that it is willing to pick on those weaker than itself so I have no problem with us using our superior power against them. Secondly, there is evidence that Iraq has broken a couple of the rules of their agreement. Have we found weapons in Iraq, no. Have they been helpful in our examination, no. Simply put, we have the power, they don't. Why should we let them get away with blatently breaking the rules that we have set fourth.

Now... I do NOT support going to war with N. Korea for several reasons. First of all, yes N. Korea has the bomb. This makes them a more serious threat so if we're going to attack them, we need to do so fast. We can't have this international lets get a tank from every country and attack this country together after 15 years of figuring how is the most moral way to do it attitude. There is no room for indecision on this. We either attack them, or we don't. If we do, there is a VERY good probability that they will feel pressured to bomb either S. Korea or Japan to show us that they're not backing down. Secondly, N. Korea has no interest in using the bomb. A weapon like that is useful for only one thing... extortion. If they use the bomb, then they lose the option of using it for extortion. Hell... N. Korea is still hoping to talk with Japan because lets face it... Japan is famous for giving you money if you hold talks with them. Personally, I wouldn't turn down a couple billion either. Thirdly, if we're going to be going to war with Iraq... we really don't want a second place were we have to fight. First of all, we're going to look like we're war hungry. Secondly, if history has taught us anything, it is to NEVER EVER fight a 2 front war. It didn't work for the Romans, it didn't work for Napoleon, it sure as heck didn't work for Hitler, etc...

[molecularfire]

:blush: Can't believe I forgot to put in the most important part of my rant.



Whether what we do in Iraq is going to be considered a success (at least IMO) isn't whether or not we can invade Iraq. Let's face it, if we attack them, we'll win. A success IMO is going to be based on whether after we tear that country down, whether we can build up something that is better than what we turn down. If not, I consider the war a failure because someone else just like him will replace him.

[WhiskeyPapa]

True patriots? Here's a list of a few of the organizers of this rally:

Socialist Party USA
The New Communist Party of the Netherlands
The Workers World Party
The Nicaragua Network
The International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal (a convicted cop-killer)

The list goes on, unfortunately, their names don't fully describe their agenda. This was nothing more than an anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Military, anti-Capitalism rally, all dressed up as an anti-war rally. Too bad thousands of otherwise good people got duped into attending.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by kb0wwp

The Workers World Party


thats practically a pro-nazism group.

sure they have the right as americans to say whatever they want, but truth be told they are the scum of america and against everything the US is great for.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by xsiled2
[B]thats practically a pro-nazism group.[B]
Actually, its basically a pro-socialism group, which is diametrically opposed to fascism, the political system of the Nazis.

[revil]

a bunch of tree hugging hippies!

speaking of iraq, whatever happened to osama?

[blueindian]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
True patriots? Here's a list of a few of the organizers of this rally:

Socialist Party USA
The New Communist Party of the Netherlands
The Workers World Party
The Nicaragua Network
The International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal (a convicted cop-killer)

The list goes on, unfortunately, their names don't fully describe their agenda. This was nothing more than an anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Military, anti-Capitalism rally, all dressed up as an anti-war rally. Too bad thousands of otherwise good people got duped into attending.

where'd you get that info from? got a link?

[Cantacuzene]

Actually fascism isnt diametrically opposed to socialism. They both use systems of social welfare. They both believe in powerful central governments. The difference really is that facism is based on a vague national-militarism and socialism has a social agenda.

The difference between Stalin and Hitler was not much. Truth be told I'd rather live in nazi germany than stalinist russia. The polar opposite of socialism is Libertarian and the polar opposite of facism is a Populist. No offense to any Populists or Libertarians, but you can see that either extreme sucks.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by kb0wwp
True patriots? Here's a list of a few of the organizers of this rally:

Socialist Party USA
The New Communist Party of the Netherlands
The Workers World Party
The Nicaragua Network
The International Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal (a convicted cop-killer)

The list goes on, unfortunately, their names don't fully describe their agenda. This was nothing more than an anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Military, anti-Capitalism rally, all dressed up as an anti-war rally. Too bad thousands of otherwise good people got duped into attending. I have heard about these groups on talk radio and they have been labeled as communist and anti-America groups. So I for one agree with kb0wwp

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I have heard about these groups on talk radio and they have been labeled as communist and anti-America groups. So I for one agree with kb0wwp

so because some 2-bit talk show radio host -- or more likely a talk radio guest -- has labeled them anti-american, you agree with that label? And further agree that these are indeed the people that organized this march?

both marches were organized by International Answer. www.internationalanswer.org. I've only looked briefly for a link to these groups, but i've not found it yet.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by revil
a bunch of tree hugging hippies!

speaking of iraq, whatever happened to osama?

dude...osama bin laden is, like, sooooooo 2001.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Originally posted by blueindian
where'd you get that info from? got a link?
http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html

You'll find many more illustrious participants that you would be proud to be associated with.

[TERRIBLETOM]

so because some 2-bit talk show radio host -- or more likely a talk radio guest -- has labeled them anti-american, you agree with that label? And further agree that these are indeed the people that organized this march? You bet, they pointed out enough simple and intelligent information that anyone could understand. :poke:

[Cantacuzene]

No offense but talk radio hosts are by and large hard core right wing republicans, many of whom consider the democratic party as "anti-american," whatever that is. I don't hold their opinion too highly, they are just talking heads with an agenda like all the others. I don't trust anyone's political opinion 100% except my own.

Everyone in media, whether it be radio, tv or written is biased so the only way to get the truth is to investigate for yourself. What Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity think is rather worthless unless you are completely brain dead and can't form opinion on your own.

[TERRIBLETOM]

I use talk radio for news and to gather information to make my own reasonable decisions. While there are republicans on this show there are just as many Democrats and Liberals. I don't always agree with everything they say but I take it all in consideration and make my own conclusions. No one wants to send men and woman over sea's for war purposes but I do think these antiwar protests are more damaging than anything else. Just as France announced that they would veto any US resolution that would result in war, that's a slap in every Americans face. They are just anti US and everything we stand and thrive for.

[molecularfire]

No one wants to send men and woman over sea's for war purposes but I do think these antiwar protests are more damaging than anything else. Just as France announced that they would veto any US resolution that would result in war, that's a slap in every Americans face. They are just anti US and everything we stand and thrive for.

Ok... first of all, everything we stand and thrive for demands that we allow them to have and express their opinions. To have a problem with people expressing their beliefs is IMO the most unamerican thing that someone can say. That's the thing that makes us different from those that we are fighting. Now... as for the France thing... France usually against wars (heck, most of Europe is). Given their past (especially France's record in WW2 and the Vietnam war) I'm not surprised. If I fought as bad as France, I'd be against fighting too. :heh:

[blueindian]

Originally posted by kb0wwp

http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html

You'll find many more illustrious participants that you would be proud to be associated with.

so some groups you don't like endorse anti war marches. big deal...that doesn't mean squat as far as i'm concerned. the fact that i too am opposed to the war just means that i happen to agree with them on something. it does not mean that i have to support their entire agenda.

and tom, how is france's resolution a slap in every americans face. need an example of one who does not feel slapped? me. not everyone wants that war, and countries are not obliged to do what we want just because we are, in our own opinions, the best country in the world. how can you fault france for not agreeing with GW's stance on the war?

[Cantacuzene]

Just as France announced that they would veto any US resolution that would result in war, that's a slap in every Americans face. They are just anti US and everything we stand and thrive for.

OK, so you don't have a problem with individual people being pacifists, but you do have a problem with whole countries being pacifists?

Its like you are saying, "i dont mind if people protest because it wont change anything or alter our decisions" but when a whole country protests, "its a slap in teh face of americans." Funny, I don't feel slapped.

Maybe its a news to you but other countries are sovereign nations, they can do whatever they want. We can attack Iraq with or without France's approval, and they can choose to veto our moves in the UN.

The problem I have is that Bush seems so certain that Iraq has these weapons. He says it very matter-of-factly when talking about it on the news. If his evidence and proof were so good wouldnt other people be easily convinced by the overwhelming proof? Its not like he is a genius and the leaders of the entire rest of the world are idiots who cant understand his complex proof.

A few days ago in another thread someone said, "if everyone says you're wrong, you're prolly wrong." The whole rest of the world is telling us to slow down, we should slow down.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
but you do have a problem with whole countries being pacifists?


france seems to be the universal pacifist so their reasoning on war is invalid. white flags up and waving.

[Cantacuzene]

I don;t think Frances preformance in its last two wars is France's fault at all.

Vietnam they were in the same boat as us, except they didnt have billions and billions of dollars to throw at the problem like we did.

In WW2 they were beaten by a very worthy foe. SO they surrendered after a few weeks. What were they supposed to do? Their entire army was destroyed or captured. Were they supposed to fight on guerrilla style and have all their citizens killed?

Lets not forget that France fought very well in WW1. They fought in the trenches against the germans and lost MILLIONS of soldiers. Compare that to the 100,000 or so we lost and you can see why they arent all about war.

Don't forget also that the greatest general in modern history and argueably all of history was the emperor of france.

Up until the Gulf War, our recent war history wasnt that spectacular either. Time changes all things...

[TERRIBLETOM]

Ok... first of all, everything we stand and thrive for demands that we allow them to have and express their opinions. To have a problem with people expressing their beliefs is IMO the most unamerican thing that someone can say. That's the thing that makes us different from those that we are fighting. Now... If the twin towers incident happened in France they would be crying to the UN for justice instead off getting of there a*ses like spineless jelly fish, I say we cut them loose.
and tom, how is france's resolution a slap in every americans face. need an example of one who does not feel slapped? me. not everyone wants that war, and countries are not obliged to do what we want just because we are, in our own opinions, the best country in the world. how can you fault france for not agreeing with GW's stance on the war?France has made up it's mind without keeping there eyes open. And of course you don't feel slapped in the face, you didn't loose anyone in 9/11
OK, so you don't have a problem with individual people being pacifists, but you do have a problem with whole countries being pacifists? I did mention that the anti-war protest are doing more damage than anything else,they are dividing a nation in stead of standing behind it. Sadam is a loaded gun waiting to go off,he always has been. maybe we should point him towards France.

[xsiled2]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I don;t think Frances preformance in its last two wars is France's fault at all.


so you are to say that the Maginot Line was a great idea while they left their left flank totally unguarded to the most powerful force the world had ever seen. france sucked and sucked hard. if hitler wasnt a moron in attacking russia, the west as we know it would not exsist.

[Cantacuzene]

I'm sure you've taken a class on military history Xsiled so you obviously know that the majority of teh French army wasn't on the Maginot line, they were in reserve exactly where they should have been. the Maginot Line has been over hyped as the csue of French defeat in WW2 but it had nothing to do with that.

The French lost because the German Panzer divisions recklessly broke away from their infantry and cut the French army in two. Had the French reserves smashed the Panzers when they broke away from the German infantry it would have been the Germans who got cut off, surrounded and destroyed. The Germans gambled and won. The difference between Heinz Guderrian being labeled a genius as he is now and a loon was very slim.

[TERRIBLETOM]

The French lost because the German Panzer divisions recklessly broke away from their infantry and cut the French army in two. Had the French reserves smashed the Panzers when they broke away from the German infantry it would have been the Germans who got cut off, surrounded and destroyed. The Germans gambled and won. The difference between Heinz Guderrian being labeled a genius as he is now and a loon was very slim. Ground wars rely on strategy good timing and men with the will to succeed. Not could have, should have and would have after the fact. That evaluation you just made was probably dreamt up by some General to deal with his failure and purely hypothetical.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
And of course you don't feel slapped in the face, you didn't loose anyone in 9/11 I

and you know this how? Cante said he doesn't feel slapped, i guess you know whether he lost someone on 9/11 to huh?

and WTF does that have to do with attacking iraq? there has, to date, been no proof of a link between al queda and iraq. none. period.

what you are saying is that because a group of terrorists, who where based in a rogue state, attacked us that it is ok for us to go attack another nation? was you thirst for vengence not quenched by bombing afganistan, killing civilian men, women, and children along with soldiars, and installing a pro american puppet governement?

attacking iraq will create more problems than it solves.

[TERRIBLETOM]

and you know this how? Cante said he doesn't feel slapped, i guess you know whether he lost someone on 9/11 to huh? and WTF does that have to do with attacking iraq? there has, to date, been no proof of a link between al queda and iraq. none. period.
I think you should stick to what you know as fact and Let Canta speak for himself, I think he can probably answer that question better than you can and he does do well for himself. And if you cant see that Iraq is a big supporter on US terrorism than you have better take the blinders off. Tell me you don't think he is bitter from the Gulf war defeat and that he wouldn't funnel money to support the terrorism on the US.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I think you should stick to what you know as fact and Let Canta speak for himself, I think he can probably answer that question better than you can and he does do well for himself. And if you cant see that Iraq is a big supporter on US terrorism than you have better take the blinders off. Tell me you don't think he is bitter from the Gulf war defeat and that he wouldn't funnel money to support the terrorism on the US.

you know why i can't see that iraq is a big supporter of US terrorism? because there is no proof. maybe you should take your blinders off my friend. Just because America says something is so or that something is right does not make it true and just. Nor does it mean that individuals or countries that disagree are un-American. Do you forget there was a time when we supported Sadam? yes, i imagine he is bitter. i also imagine that japan was bitter after we whipped their ass, but i don't see you spouting off that they were ever supporting US terrorism.

and what i know as a fact is that you have not a clue as to whether or not i lost anyone in 9/11. and Cante did speak for himself, i was just pointing out his statment in support of my point.


Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Funny, I don't feel slapped.

[LPMiller]

Ok, ya'll need to relax a little.

I'm not for this war, because I don't have proof in front of me of anything. And I'm sorry, but I doubt all 30,000 people at the protest were commies or whatever either. If it wasn't for dissent, we wouldn't even have a country, we'd still be a colony, so lets hold up on the name calling too.

I do believe Mr. Bush is going ahead regardless, and I think it's a gigantic mistake. But then I think if we wait long enough, Saddam will give us plenty of reason, we just need to bide our time. It's not that I think we should never go there, it's that I don't think we have a good enough reason to do it NOW.

However, I don't believe it's all about oil either. People need to stop watching TV and expecting everything to be about 1 issue; things are more complicated than that. We need to think about what we are doing and why, and we need to stop snipping at ourselves and try to understand a bit better whats going on. Rush, O'Reilly, whatever, they ain't going to tell us what is going on, only what they think their audience wants to hear. Too many folks in the country would rather have someone elses opinion than their own.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
Ground wars rely on strategy good timing and men with the will to succeed. Not could have, should have and would have after the fact. That evaluation you just made was probably dreamt up by some General to deal with his failure and purely hypothetical.

No, I've looked at the facts and my conclusion is the Germans took an incredible risk which most would call suicidal, but since it paid off they look like geniuses.

I'm not saying anything about you personally because I have no idea your level of education but I hate armchair historians educated by the History Channel. They especially think they know about WW2. Its infuriating.

[molecularfire]

I don;t think Frances preformance in its last two wars is France's fault at all...
If you build a base at the bottom of a cannon, you deserve to lose that base.

In WW2 they were beaten by a very worthy foe. SO they surrendered after a few weeks. What were they supposed to do? Their entire army was destroyed or captured. Were they supposed to fight on guerrilla style and have all their citizens killed?
Did the German's fight well, yes. Did France lose to a country with far inferior weaponry, yes. How is their defeat not their fault. They lost in WW2 for one simple reason, they relied on superior firepower and gave up on speed and maneuverability (sp?)

If the twin towers incident happened in France they would be crying to the UN for justice instead off getting of there a*ses like spineless jelly fish, I say we cut them loose.
Uh... but the Twin Towers thing did not happen in France. How much do you think we'd care if terrorists had flown planes into the Eiffel tower? I doubt we'd care enough to send our people out to die for it. Anyways, 1) When has blind rage ever been a good reason to get into a fight. 2) There is no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Heck, there are a LOT of other countries that have and currently are supporting terrorist groups that we aren't attacking Ex: Syria, Lebanon, etc... so I'm not sure that that's a good reason for attacking Iraq. Now... if you wanted to attack Iraq to protect Kuwaitt, that would be a better argument. If you wanted to attack Iraq because you're worried that they are developing weapons, that would be a better argument. If you want to attack Iraq because they have oil, that would be a better argument. If you want to attack Iraq to set up a puppet govt. so that we have a better foothold in the middle east, that would be a better argument. Heck, if you wanted to attack Iraq because we're bored and we figure our military could use the practice, that would be a better argument than because they are supporting terrorism. Sorry, but the person whose eyes are closed is you. Youre eyes are so closed by rage that you're supporting attacking a country for illogical reasons.

[TERRIBLETOM]

you know why i can't see that iraq is a big supporter of US terrorism? because there is no proof. maybe you should take your blinders off my friend. Just because America says something is so or that something is right does not make it true and just. Nor does it mean that individuals or countries that disagree are un-American. Do you forget there was a time when we supported Sadam? yes, i imagine he is bitter. i also imagine that japan was bitter after we whipped their ass, but i don't see you spouting off that they were ever supporting US terrorism. Can you show proof that there not supporting US terrorism, if you can speak up or post some links. If I recall correctly didn't Iraq purchase mass quantities of certain materials that can be used for biological weapons and deny it. And your right, I don't know if you lost anyone in 9/11 and I still don't, Until then my views still stand on the matter.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
Can you show proof that there not supporting US terrorism, if you can speak up or post some links. If I recall correctly didn't Iraq purchase mass quantities of certain materials that can be used for biological weapons and deny it. And your right, I don't know if you lost anyone in 9/11 and I still don't, Until then my views still stand on the matter.

no, i cannot show proof that iraq is not supporting US terrorism. neither can i show proof that canada and australia are not...do you want to bomb them too? hell, i can't show proof that you aren't supporting US terrorism, should i attack you? :D

aren't we supposed to be doing this the american way? innocent until proven guilty right?

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by blueindian


no, i cannot show proof that iraq is not supporting US terrorism. neither can i show proof that canada and australia are not...do you want to bomb them too? hell, i can't show proof that you aren't supporting US terrorism, should i attack you? :D

aren't we supposed to be doing this the american way? innocent until proven guilty right? Come on now be reasonable, we all know that Canada's Navy consists of row boats and wrist rockets. :poke:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
Can you show proof that there not supporting US terrorism, if you can speak up or post some links.

Thats called 'proving the negative.' Its a fallacy and completely illogical.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Thats called 'proving the negative.' Its a fallacy and completely illogical. I was simply giving him back the choices he provided for myself, That's where this thread is stooping too. A lot of hand holding and back rubbing going on here. Lets face it, war in inevitable it seems, just deal with it, you may feel better.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
[B Lets face it, war in inevitable it seems, just deal with it, you may feel better. [/B]

Sorry, call it my American nature, but I don't resign myself to failure as fast as people from other countries.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Sorry, call it my American nature, but I don't resign myself to failure as fast as people from other countries. I don't think anyone has questioned whether you are an American/US citizen, I certainly haven't. But since you brought it up, what steps have you taken to "resist yourself from failure" in regards to this matter?

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I was simply giving him back the choices he provided for myself, That's where this thread is stooping too. A lot of hand holding and back rubbing going on here. Lets face it, war in inevitable it seems, just deal with it, you may feel better.

Just because its going to happem doesn't make it right, nor would it make people feel better.

There's no proof that Iraq should be attacked, in my opinion. I don't believe that GWB is attacking Iraq because of Osama or terrorism. I have yet to hear him declare anything resembling a solid fact. Until that happens, I can't find myself supporting his cause. To me, this isn't about terrorism. I feel that GWB has completely abandoned the hunt for Osama and placed his focus on some unfinished business with Iraq.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Jihforce


Just because its going to happem doesn't make it right, nor would it make people feel better.

There's no proof that Iraq should be attacked, in my opinion. I don't believe that GWB is attacking Iraq because of Osama or terrorism. I have yet to hear him declare anything resembling a solid fact. Until that happens, I can't find myself supporting his cause. To me, this isn't about terrorism. I feel that GWB has completely abandoned the hunt for Osama and placed his focus on some unfinished business with Iraq. As long as we have soldiers in Afghanistan it is not abandon. As far as Iraq the main reason again is that he is failing to comply with UN resolutions. What does he do, he submits a 13k page report with the hopes that it will delay the proses. That's like when the IRS shows up at your door step and they want to go over your taxes and receipts, you open the trunk of your car that is filled with lose paper and say here you go, have fun. :poke:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
What does he do, he submits a 13k page report with the hopes that it will delay the proses. That's like when the IRS shows up at your door step and they want to go over your taxes and receipts, you open the trunk of your car that is filled with lose paper and say here you go, have fun.

If I were Saddam Hussein I would be trying to delay the bombing too...

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


If I were Saddam Hussein I would be trying to delay the bombing too... Exactly, all it does is cause frustration and that is why it has escalated to this point.

[Cantacuzene]

No, the reason I would delay is because like most humans, I don't want to be bombed for nothing.

[TERRIBLETOM]

For nothing??? You surprise me with that answer, I know you are much more intelligent than that. A liar must keep lying to uphold his fictitious demeanor.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
As long as we have soldiers in Afghanistan it is not abandon. As far as Iraq the main reason again is that he is failing to comply with UN resolutions.

you said above that it was because iraq sponsered US terrorism. which is it?

and you know who says he's failing to comply with UN resolutions? The US, not the UN.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
For nothing??? You surprise me with that answer, I know you are much more intelligent than that. A liar must keep lying to uphold his fictitious demeanor.

What can be proven that he did that requires war?

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by blueindian


you said above that it was because iraq sponsered US terrorism. which is it?

and you know who says he's failing to comply with UN resolutions? The US, not the UN. I do believe they sponsor terrorism, I also believe they are failing to comply with UN resolutions. Is that so hard to understand? This is what is called "Reasons" (plural)

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I do believe they sponsor terrorism, I also believe they are failing to comply with UN resolutions. Is that so hard to understand? This is what is called "Reasons" (plural)

i understand that you believe that. but if you expect the me or anyone else in the world to support a war based on your belief, you'll be waiting for a long time.

i require more than a belief, hunch, supposition, or even educated guess before i can even begin to think about supporting a war that will kill countless innocent people.

the truth of the matter is, our government has shown us no proof for their allegations, and therefore not given us a good reason to go to war. and you know what the funny thing about truth is? it exists whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


What can be proven that he did that requires war? I don't have the UN resolution in front of me so I can not dictate it word for word. But from what I understand is that he had to reveal all locations of weapons, materials and weapon fabricating facilities. My understanding is that they have had some difficulties entering some of these facilities upon request. What about the missiles that were found by UN inspectors, were those card board props? We're talking about a man who's agenda is deception, his past record speaks for itself and cant be denied.

[TERRIBLETOM]

i understand that you believe that. but if you expect the me or anyone else in the world to support a war based on your belief, you'll be waiting for a long time My belief is also the belief of many others and that can not be over looked either.
i require more than a belief, hunch, supposition, or even educated guess before i can even begin to think about supporting a war that will kill countless innocent people. Countless innocent people like the ones in NYC, Washington DC and Pennsylvania? All you have to do is look how he treats his country men. Or is using poisonous gas on them for testing reasons humane? Like he has any regard for human life.
the truth of the matter is, our government has shown us no proof for their allegations, and therefore not given us a good reason to go to war. and you know what the funny thing about truth is? it exists whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. Have you ever seen the truth stretched or covered up by lies? Do you remember the first time you ever lied, I bet you cant deny it was to save your own a*s. Has a cop ever asked you if you have been drinking and you replied "no"?

[Cantacuzene]

I don't have the UN resolution in front of me so I can not dictate it word for word. But from what I understand is that he had to reveal all locations of weapons, materials and weapon fabricating facilities. My understanding is that they have had some difficulties entering some of these facilities upon request. What about the missiles that were found by UN inspectors, were those card board props?

The first part about that is really vague. None of that is concrete. The empty missles they found are not a major deal and no real proof of anything.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


The first part about that is really vague. None of that is concrete. The empty missles they found are not a major deal and no real proof of anything. So we should just pat him on the back and say don't worry about it. That would be similar to finding paint smeared all over your car and then catching your son/daughter with empty paint cans. It couldn't have been him/her, there's no paint in the can. Now answer this truthfully and I know you will, if we shouldn't be concerned about the so called inoperative missiles, when should we be concerned. It's only a matter of time before the crazy man loads an empty gun. I know you being a responsible gun owner can understand that.

[Cantacuzene]

Your analogy was completely wrong. More properly it would be...

I have a deep and maybe perhaps well founded mistrust of my children and suspect they will paint my car, as they have painted things of mine in the past. I told them they are grounded until they prove to me they have no paint. They say they don;t have any paint but I dont believe them. I serach through their room, reading their journals and diaries and calling up all their friends on the phone behind their backs. I still don't find any paint. I get frustrated so I tell them that unless they admit where they are hiding their paint I will not give them desert ever again. My wife then protests saying that there is no proof that they have paint and we need to give the kids a chance before we punish them but I disagree and punish them anyway regardless.

I know that was long, but I'm sure all can agree its a better analogy than your example.

[Hunny]

And now a word from our sponsor:


Store Closing Notice:

ALL K-MART AND WALMART STORES WILL BE CLOSED IN IRAQ

THEY WILL BE REPLACED WITH TARGETS







:cool:

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Your analogy was completely wrong. More properly it would be...

I have a deep and maybe perhaps well founded mistrust of my children and suspect they will paint my car, as they have painted things of mine in the past. I told them they are grounded until they prove to me they have no paint. They say they don;t have any paint but I dont believe them. I serach through their room, reading their journals and diaries and calling up all their friends on the phone behind their backs. I still don't find any paint. I get frustrated so I tell them that unless they admit where they are hiding their paint I will not give them desert ever again. My wife then protests saying that there is no proof that they have paint and we need to give the kids a chance before we punish them but I disagree and punish them anyway regardless.

I know that was long, but I'm sure all can agree its a better analogy than your example.

THe problem with your example is that...

A. Your kids didn't paint your cat, your dog, all of your cars, and not to mention your house just because they didn't like the way you painted it. (in mention to the kurds).

B. Your kids do not have target receipts for the paint cans...

C. Your kids do not threaten to paint every car on the block just because they think the bimmer across the street would look better with their own color paint on it.

D. Your kids didn't paint the house across the street a different color, move in, and then burn the place down with gas after you told them to behave and sent them to bed without dinner.

E. Your kids didn't threaten the little kid across the street who had his own paint because they think their paint is better, even though the kid across the street has paint just as powerful.

F. Your kids cannot hold the rest of the world hostage with their paint. However, since we have pastel painted hippies in the world, THEY CAN.

LK

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Your analogy was completely wrong. More properly it would be...

I have a deep and maybe perhaps well founded mistrust of my children and suspect they will paint my car, as they have painted things of mine in the past. I told them they are grounded until they prove to me they have no paint. They say they don;t have any paint but I dont believe them. I serach through their room, reading their journals and diaries and calling up all their friends on the phone behind their backs. I still don't find any paint. I get frustrated so I tell them that unless they admit where they are hiding their paint I will not give them desert ever again. My wife then protests saying that there is no proof that they have paint and we need to give the kids a chance before we punish them but I disagree and punish them anyway regardless.

I know that was long, but I'm sure all can agree its a better analogy than your example. I hate long winded analogy's, I prefer blunt and to the point statements. But while it may be close to what I was expressing it's not the same. You probably perceived it differently than I do.

[TERRIBLETOM]

I'm not saying anything about you personally because I have no idea your level of education but I hate armchair historians educated by the History Channel. They especially think they know about WW2. Its infuriating. Isn't a semester in American history by a single professor also one sided? While he quotes the facts in history he also draws his own personal conclusions and presents them as fact.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
Countless innocent people like the ones in NYC, Washington DC and Pennsylvania? All you have to do is look how he treats his country men. Or is using poisonous gas on them for testing reasons humane? Like he has any regard for human life.

There is no doubt that Hussain is an insane POS that has trampled human rights time and time again. But the simple fact of the matter is that not one brach of our government has shown an ounce of proof that iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So your implied assertion that because we lost thousands of people in that attack holds no water in a discussion as to whether or not we should invade iraq.

But that does bring up an interesting point. Why has all the focus shifted to iraq? When is the last time anyone heard the name Osama bin Laden on the news? When is the last time you heard the president, congress, joint chiefs of staff, or anyone else talk about it? Why has much of the terrorism chatter been replaced with the now cliched(sp?) phrase "weapons of mass destruction"?

I'll tell you what i think. It's because, in comparision to Al Queda, Iraq is any easy target. They are already worn down, beaten and battered. Their country, for the most part, is in shambles. But, most importantly, they are all in one place. Al Queda is in 90 countries and therefore a difficult target. If our government can convice our population that Iraq=Terrorism, then they have a good chance that the majortiy of the populus will accept unilateral action. then after we bomb the $hit out of them we can claim a day of victory over terrorism. hell, i can hear the speaches now.

but what will we have solved? nothing. what problems will we have created? we will have alienated our allies. we will have set a dangerous precident of UN nations acting outside of UN accord on international matters. we will increase the hatred of middle eastern muslims towards americans, likely provoking more terror attacks on our home soil. we will have the blood of innocents on our hands. and the list goes on...

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
Isn't a semester in American history by a single professor also one sided? While he quotes the facts in history he also draws his own personal conclusions and presents them as fact.

Yeah, it would be. Luckily I've had a bit more training than that.

[Cantacuzene]

B. Your kids do not have target receipts for the paint cans...

If they can prove Iraq bought x amount of missles and iraq doesn't show them x amount of missles then the issue is cut and dry. The fact they can do neither shows the issue is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.


C. Your kids do not threaten to paint every car on the block just because they think the bimmer across the street would look better with their own color paint on it.

So idle threats are a reason to go to war now? Who knew. We could have skipped Pearl Harbor and just went straight into WW2.


D. Your kids didn't paint the house across the street a different color, move in, and then burn the place down with gas after you told them to behave and sent them to bed without dinner.

I don't know what real world event this is in reference to. I don;t recall Saddam Hussein invading another country since Kuwait in the Gulf War.


F. Your kids cannot hold the rest of the world hostage with their paint. However, since we have pastel painted hippies in the world, THEY CAN.

Personally, I don't feel threatened by Iraq right now. You would think if I was being held hostage I would feel it. You war mongers must have insecurities or something that make you feel vulnerable.

The issue here boils down to whether or not we can prove he does or doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. If we prove he does we invade, if we can't, we dont invade. Bush seems to be intent on invading anyway, proof be damned. That angers people and causes them to protest.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Yeah, it would be. Luckily I've had a bit more training than that. I can tell you have, I was just comparing it to your "armchair historian".

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by blueindian


There is no doubt that Hussain is an insane POS that has trampled human rights time and time again. But the simple fact of the matter is that not one brach of our government has shown an ounce of proof that iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So your implied assertion that because we lost thousands of people in that attack holds no water in a discussion as to whether or not we should invade iraq.

But that does bring up an interesting point. Why has all the focus shifted to iraq? When is the last time anyone heard the name Osama bin Laden on the news? When is the last time you heard the president, congress, joint chiefs of staff, or anyone else talk about it? Why has much of the terrorism chatter been replaced with the now cliched(sp?) phrase "weapons of mass destruction"?

I'll tell you what i think. It's because, in comparision to Al Queda, Iraq is any easy target. They are already worn down, beaten and battered. Their country, for the most part, is in shambles. But, most importantly, they are all in one place. Al Queda is in 90 countries and therefore a difficult target. If our government can convice our population that Iraq=Terrorism, then they have a good chance that the majortiy of the populus will accept unilateral action. then after we bomb the $hit out of them we can claim a day of victory over terrorism. hell, i can hear the speaches now.

but what will we have solved? nothing. what problems will we have created? we will have alienated our allies. we will have set a dangerous precident of UN nations acting outside of UN accord on international matters. we will increase the hatred of middle eastern muslims towards americans, likely provoking more terror attacks on our home soil. we will have the blood of innocents on our hands. and the list goes on... I see your getting kind of long winded and I skimmed through it because of the lack of time I have. But are we to put all our resources into one basket and totally ignore Iraq? Don't blame US politics for the lack of conversation about Al Queda, The media plays a big role in what you hear and don't hear.

[Ladogaboy]

Well, since a Bush put Saddam in power, I guess it is only right that his progeny dethrones him. :hmm:

I just wish he wouldn't take the rest of us with him...

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


If they can prove Iraq bought x amount of missles and iraq doesn't show them x amount of missles then the issue is cut and dry. The fact they can do neither shows the issue is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be.



So idle threats are a reason to go to war now? Who knew. We could have skipped Pearl Harbor and just went straight into WW2.



I don't know what real world event this is in reference to. I don;t recall Saddam Hussein invading another country since Kuwait in the Gulf War.



Personally, I don't feel threatened by Iraq right now. You would think if I was being held hostage I would feel it. You war mongers must have insecurities or something that make you feel vulnerable.

The issue here boils down to whether or not we can prove he does or doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. If we prove he does we invade, if we can't, we dont invade. Bush seems to be intent on invading anyway, proof be damned. That angers people and causes them to protest.

It has been shown that Iraq bought the Aluminum that is used for missile bodies, the alu bought has NO other uses for that grade. It has also been proven that they recently emptied those warheads. We KNOW they have MILLIONS of tons of chemical weapons, where is it? THis stuff just doesn't disappear.

Its not "idle" threats. Saddam WOULD kill israel if he did have a nuke, thats planely evident. Bub bye Jerusalem.

YOU dont feel threatened? How about the Israelis? How about Kuwaitis, or Saudi's? Iraq is STILL the only country that is aggressive AND has used chemical weapons in the recent past. Furthermore, Saddam clearly shows a penchant for coveting they neighbors property.

Think of it another way. Do you know what oil uses? I laugh when people say that cars will experience outages. It wont be JUST cars if he strangles the world oil supply. Have you ever taken a look at what actually happened during the energy chrisis? EVERYTHING became more expensive, that is why there were 14-17% interest rates on houses, because inflation was so fekking much. Plastics, lubricants, EVERYTHING rose drastically in price. All because of Israel trying to defend their own country, it will happen again and short sighted people do not see it.

What you STILL dont understand is that we DONT have to prove he has them, he has to prove he DOESNT. The burden of proof rests on the defense, not on the prosecution. We KNOW he has the stuff, we KNOW he has been pursuing nuclear weapons for years. We KNOW he has chems, bio's, and others. We KNOW that somewhere his funds do not add up. However, people in the world want to placate others as much as possible.

Let me ask you, if the US had come up with some seceret information in 1939 that the germans were rounding up all jews and staring to kill them, do you think the world would demand proof? Do you think that we would have to show them the concentration camps? Would we have to show the smoking bodies? HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? While this isn't as dire, the point remains that how much longer are we going to bend over backwards to protect a person who has killed undreds of thousands of people AND holds the world in his hands.


LK

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
Well, since a Bush put Saddam in power, I guess it is only right that his progeny dethrones him. :hmm:

I just wish he wouldn't take the rest of us with him...

Perhaps you should do a bit more research...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/walden/sad_timeline.shtml

He was in power LONG before President Bush Sr. became president, or even head of CIA in 82

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by LegendKiller


Perhaps you should do a bit more research...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/walden/sad_timeline.shtml

He was in power LONG before President Bush Sr. became president, or even head of CIA in 82

So maybe "put him in power" isn't the best way of saying it, but he certainly solidified his power base.

"Ohhh, look at that cute little bully. Let's give him a gun... Texas style!" :hehehmm:

:rolleyes:

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


So maybe "put him in power" isn't the best way of saying it, but he certainly solidified his power base.

"Ohhh, look at that cute little bully. Let's give him a gun... Texas style!" :hehehmm:

:rolleyes:

He got his chem weapons during the late 70's very early 80's, again, look at the timeline. Before President Bush Sr. was even involved...

If your going to spread FUD, at least make sure its somewhat credible.


LK

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by LegendKiller


He got his chem weapons during the late 70's very early 80's, again, look at the timeline. Before President Bush Sr. was even involved...

If your going to spread FUD, at least make sure its somewhat credible.


LK

I never said chemical weapons... that's all you.



1984 By extending warfare to the Gulf states' shipping, he managed to involve the US in the conflict - against Iran - in the name of protecting oil shipping lanes.

1988 August. the Iran-Iraq War ended in a draw. But he emerged as the leader of a country with vastly enhanced military power.

Damn, man, read your own link. :2far:

[TERRIBLETOM]

I agree with LegendKiller Automobiles are not the only consumer of petroleum products. Many homes use oil for heat and to produce hot water. Where in the southern states it is not used as much, it is still used. Also Kerosene which is a petroleum product is used in lanterns and other portable heating devises. Many household products are petroleum based, I could provide a list but all you have to do is take the initiative and read the labels.
Let me ask you, if the US had come up with some seceret information in 1939 that the germans were rounding up all jews and staring to kill them, do you think the world would demand proof? Do you think that we would have to show them the concentration camps? Would we have to show the smoking bodies? HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? While this isn't as dire, the point remains that how much longer are we going to bend over backwards to protect a person who has killed undreds of thousands of people AND holds the world in his hands. And can you believe that there are still groups out there saying it never happened.

[Jihforce]

I have to agree with Canta and Blueindian on this one Tom. I find it quite difficult to support a war that is based on the "hypothetical". I don't have the tendency to trust the gov't in issues like this. Specially when they seem reluctant of providing the proof. I've been reading the papers, looking online for articles and watching the news and I have yet to find anything resembling a strong evidence. Unless you're getting your information from a more reliable source than mine, I just don't think its a great idea to send out tens of thousands of troops and risk their lives for a war that not all Americans believe in. I have friends in the military and I do not want to see them risk their lives based the assumption that Iraq is a threat.
Since we're talking about opinions here, I'll state mine. I think we lost track of Osama, and in order to keep American's faith in this whole "anti-terror" campaign, GWB has diverted his attention to the "Axis of Evil". Problem is, he's looking at Iraq because he's "daddy" had some unfinished business there. Why not gather up some 20,000 troops next to North Korea? They clearly have show themselves to be spineless. You say that as long as we don't leave Afganistan, we're doing something about Osama? What if Osama isn't in Afganistan? What if he's in Saudi Arabia? What if he's hanging out in Guam having a pina colada? There's no active effort in finding the man and most of us can see that. I'm calling the administration's decisions very questionable because there aren't many accurate facts being brought to our attention. Just fingerpointing & unwillingness to find a peaceful solution. Can't exactly blame the world for not really wanting to support effort that isn't supported by facts. I'm sure its much easier to send people to die sitting in an office than it is to do it on the battlefield.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I agree with LegendKiller Automobiles are not the only consumer of petroleum products. Many homes use oil for heat and to produce hot water. Where in the southern states it is not used as much, it is still used. Also Kerosene which is a petroleum product is used in lanterns and other portable heating devises. Many household products are petroleum based, I could provide a list but all you have to do is take the initiative and read the labels.

So now its about the price of consumer goods? Which one is it? is it the fear of mass destruction or the price of consumer goods? Or is it because Saddam tried to assassinate George Sr? Or maybe its because SOMEHOW, Saddam IS connected to Osama and all the bastards in the world?

And LK, I have disagree with your comment about "The burden of proof rests on the defense, not on the prosecution". In order to accuse someone of something you need to have some evidence. Some facts, not some IDEA of what you THINK happened. Everyone can go around pointing fingers, it doesn't take much effort to do that. That's why there are so many frivolous lawsuits in this country.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Jihforce
I have to agree with Canta and Blueindian on this one Tom. I find it quite difficult to support a war that is based on the "hypothetical". I don't have the tendency to trust the gov't in issues like this. Specially when they seem reluctant of providing the proof. I've been reading the papers, looking online for articles and watching the news and I have yet to find anything resembling a strong evidence. Unless you're getting your information from a more reliable source than mine, I just don't think its a great idea to send out tens of thousands of troops and risk their lives for a war that not all Americans believe in. I have friends in the military and I do not want to see them risk their lives based the assumption that Iraq is a threat.
Since we're talking about opinions here, I'll state mine. I think we lost track of Osama, and in order to keep American's faith in this whole "anti-terror" campaign, GWB has diverted his attention to the "Axis of Evil". Problem is, he's looking at Iraq because he's "daddy" had some unfinished business there. Why not gather up some 20,000 troops next to North Korea? They clearly have show themselves to be spineless. You say that as long as we don't leave Afganistan, we're doing something about Osama? What if Osama isn't in Afganistan? What if he's in Saudi Arabia? What if he's hanging out in Guam having a pina colada? There's no active effort in finding the man and most of us can see that. I'm calling the administration's decisions very questionable because there aren't many accurate facts being brought to our attention. Just fingerpointing & unwillingness to find a peaceful solution. Can't exactly blame the world for not really wanting to support effort that isn't supported by facts. I'm sure its much easier to send people to die sitting in an office than it is to do it on the battlefield. I'll have to refer you to LegendKiller post in reference to proof, I don't feel like going through it again. We don't know where Osama is, that's why they are still in Afghanistan, Do you support other countries harboring terrorist that are clearly being sought after?

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Jihforce


So now its about the price of consumer goods? Which one is it? is it the fear of mass destruction or the price of consumer goods? Or is it because Saddam tried to assassinate George Sr? Or maybe its because SOMEHOW, Saddam IS connected to Osama and all the bastards in the world?

And LK, I have disagree with your comment about "The burden of proof rests on the defense, not on the prosecution". In order to accuse someone of something you need to have some evidence. Some facts, not some IDEA of what you THINK happened. Everyone can go around pointing fingers, it doesn't take much effort to do that. That's why there are so many frivolous lawsuits in this country. I believe you are only absorbing what your beliefs are, I was simply pointing out that petroleum products effect much more than automobiles.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Think of it another way. Do you know what oil uses? I laugh when people say that cars will experience outages. It wont be JUST cars if he strangles the world oil supply. Have you ever taken a look at what actually happened during the energy chrisis? EVERYTHING became more expensive, that is why there were 14-17% interest rates on houses, because inflation was so fekking much. Plastics, lubricants, EVERYTHING rose drastically in price. All because of Israel trying to defend their own country, it will happen again and short sighted people do not see it.
i think you're misstating the case rather dramatically here.

how exactly is saddam going to strangle the world oil supply? currently, iraq is putting out around 5% of the world's crude production (those were the last figures i heard). even if he took all that off the market and no other oil producers filled the gap, oil prices would increase, but they wouldn't shoot through the roof.

and most likely, if saddam were to do that, saudi arabia would pump up their production and we wouldn't know the difference (except as passed on to us by price-gouging oil companies).

the real risk of the world's oil supply being "strangled" comes from reckless behavior from the U.S., which increasingly runs the risk of angering our oil-producing allies around the world (russia, turkey, saudi arabia, etc etc etc).

the energy crisis of the 70s was not caused by a lack of oil supply or a dictator trying to strangle the western world. it came as a result of OPEC taking revenge on the U.S. for their support of israel. i'm not going to say that support was wrong (that's another discussion entirely). however, it illustrates that point that the real threat to our economy is not saddam -- it's the risk of OPEC cutting off our oil.

Originally posted by LegendKiller
What you STILL dont understand is that we DONT have to prove he has them, he has to prove he DOESNT. The burden of proof rests on the defense, not on the prosecution. We KNOW he has the stuff, we KNOW he has been pursuing nuclear weapons for years. We KNOW he has chems, bio's, and others. We KNOW that somewhere his funds do not add up. However, people in the world want to placate others as much as possible.
right, but you're assuming that there is proof that he ever had this stuff. you say "we know he has" this and that.

if we KNOW that, then why aren't we sharing it with the rest of the world? if Bush has such incontrovertable proof, then why isn't he talking about it every time he's on TV? why isn't he and his administration clearly laying out the proof they have for Saddam's past behavior and showing where there is a lack of evidence that he has discarded these weapons?

basically, either the proof isn't there, or else the administration is doing about the worst PR job in history as they try to sell this war to the american public and the international community

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Let me ask you, if the US had come up with some seceret information in 1939 that the germans were rounding up all jews and staring to kill them, do you think the world would demand proof? Do you think that we would have to show them the concentration camps? Would we have to show the smoking bodies? HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? While this isn't as dire, the point remains that how much longer are we going to bend over backwards to protect a person who has killed undreds of thousands of people AND holds the world in his hands.
there was proof. it was widely known in europe. the new york times reported it before the U.S. even entered WWII.

unfortunately, people were not aroused to do something about it....

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I'll have to refer you to LegendKiller post in reference to proof, I don't feel like going through it again. We don't know where Osama is, that's why they are still in Afghanistan. Do you support other countries harboring terrorist that are clearly being sought after?

I hardly find LK's comments to fact or evidence for that matter. You see, you're willing to accept anyone's comment to be truth and fact as long as it fits with your own belief system. Not me. You can't address the real issues because you don't have any proof. You have your assumptions, which is just that, assumptions.

Right, we don't know where Osama is, so we go after Iraq because we don't have anything better to do with our time and resources? Like I said, why not North Korea, they're pretty sleezy too.

Do I support countries that harbor terrorists? No, I do not. What does that have anything to do with my statements anyway? Are you ASSUMING that just because I don't agree with you that I support countries that harbor terrorists?

I've seen plenty of people who act on impulse and then end up regreting their decision. When people die, saying "I'm sorry" just isn't good enough.

[LegendKiller]

The proof is there. THey have proof that he had MILLIONS of tons of WMD's, chems, bios and such. The UN (NOT President Bush) state that he has NOT shown that he has destroyed everything (notice the warheads). The burden of proof IS on them. They purchased this stuff from European, Asian, and a few US companies in the last 2 decades, it was on the news the other night! They KNOW they have this stuff. The problem is is that Saddam CLAIMS to have destroyed it all and most people are willing to accept that. How many times does it take for you to think he's a liar?

Nope, not building an army
Nope, not using WMD's on Iran
Nope, not using WMD's on Kurds
Nope, not going to invade Kuwait
Nope, not going to kill the Kuwaiti royal family
Nope, not going to invade Saudi Arabia
Nope, not going to stay in Kuwait, I will leave
Nope, not shooting at you, your the only one firing
Nope, not going to gas more Kurds
Nope, not going to rebuild a nuclear reactor
Nope, not going to build a super-cannon
Nope, not going to import Alu used for ballistic missile bodies
I am going to destroy all WMD's and warheads (even if they are found, they are STILL destroyed)

How many lies does it take? The UN says Iraq has to PROVE they have no WMD's, if they do not, then they are in violation. If the UN accuses them of WMD's (which they do) its a burden of production case, thus it is up to the defendant to prove they are innocent to a fact-finder (un). That is what law dictionaries say (my GF's a 2nd year law student). Its a FACT that Iraq has NOT done this, and have even broken their word.

I think your also confusing a few different points here. You guys seem to be focused on the microeconomic effects of Saddam (oil). However, him destabilizing the whole middle east has macroeconomic effects. Do you think for a second that if we left he wouldn't do anything? Common, get real.

You cannot always release methods and information on those methods of intelligence gathering. What if we DO know he has a nuke? If it came from a high-ranked general, do you think we will release that? Heck no, we want more info from the guy, not to get him killed off.

Think of this little scenario. We leave, Saddam dies. Then what? Do you think that Saudi wouldn't take over Iraq? How about Kuwait? Its evident that these countries are mercs out for the biggest buck. IF they doubled their reserves and population do you think they would be friendly to us anymore?

What if he does have a nuke? Then he launches on Israel just to stir the pot. Israel invades or responds in kind, then we are screwed that way. The whole situation is a ticking time bomb, and it needs to be solved now.

whitak24, I dont know where you get your "widely known", since I have a BS in history, centering on European history from 1850-1970. I have read DOZENS of books showing that, while the concentration camps WERE known, the killing of the jewish people was not know. In fact, the "final solution" was not even decided upon until late 1943-1944. Furthermore, there were only 2 camps anywhere west of the german boarder, and those were well away from civilain populations. Thus, the only ones that might have known were the patrol guards, and the civilians living around the camps, which were all polish or czeck, and they were HIGHLY subjugated, you said anything, you were shot or put in there with the others.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I believe you are only absorbing what your beliefs are, I was simply pointing out that petroleum products effect much more than automobiles.

Yes, I am...and it seems that you were pretty much doing the same in many of your posts.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
LK's response

I can only speak for myself here. I am not opposed to war if concret proof is presented (finding thousands of rockets, chemicals, etc...that haven't been disclosed). I don't mind have tens of thousands of troops standing by for an invasion. Watching Saddam's every move and make him sweat under the collar is not bad thing. However, I do no see why the hunt for Osama should be put on the backburner. I also don't understand why there's not more attention place on North Korea for their nuclear programs which they agreed to abandon but haven't. It just seems to me that we're willing to just jump into war based on a few empty rockets and assumptions while over on the other side of the world we got guys that are very earger to build nukes.

PS-Its still much easier to throw around accusations than to prove anything. Just because its written in law dictionaries it doesn't mean it not flawed. The legal system in the US is by no means perfect.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Jihforce


I can only speak for myself here. I am not opposed to war if concret proof is presented (finding thousands of rockets, chemicals, etc...that haven't been disclosed). I don't mind have tens of thousands of troops standing by for an invasion. Watching Saddam's every move and make him sweat under the collar is not bad thing. However, I do no see why the hunt for Osama should be put on the backburner. I also don't understand why there's not more attention place on North Korea for their nuclear programs which they agreed to abandon but haven't. It just seems to me that we're willing to just jump into war based on a few empty rockets and assumptions while over on the other side of the world we got guys that are very earger to build nukes.

PS-Its still much easier to throw around accusations than to prove anything. Just because its written in law dictionaries it doesn't mean it not flawed. The legal system in the US is by no means perfect.

Jihforce, you are not understanding what I am saying. US law is based on Common Law, which has been set down throughout the centuries. Ours is slightly modified, like all countries laws are. There are other types of laws, I saw a study once that showed that countries who accepted French common law ended up being poverty driven and a third world country. While, countries who accepted british common law ended up being in a better economic shape.

Furthermore, the UN bases its resolutions on British common law. It has nothing to do with the USA, everything to do with what the UN says. Let me repeat that, The UN has set forth that Iraq must obey common law and abiding practices, under this, it MUST prove that it does NOT have WMD's, the burden of proof is on IRAQ according to the UN (NOT the USA). Thus, IRAQ is failing UN resolutions based on common law which means that the US DOES have room to proceed with whatever action it deems neccessary.


LK

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Jihforce


I hardly find LK's comments to fact or evidence for that matter. You see, you're willing to accept anyone's comment to be truth and fact as long as it fits with your own belief system. Not me. You can't address the real issues because you don't have any proof. You have your assumptions, which is just that, assumptions.

Right, we don't know where Osama is, so we go after Iraq because we don't have anything better to do with our time and resources? Like I said, why not North Korea, they're pretty sleezy too.

Do I support countries that harbor terrorists? No, I do not. What does that have anything to do with my statements anyway? Are you ASSUMING that just because I don't agree with you that I support countries that harbor terrorists?

I've seen plenty of people who act on impulse and then end up regreting their decision. When people die, saying "I'm sorry" just isn't good enough. I haven't entered this thread without drawing some conclusions of my own, I shouldn't have to re-post something that someone has already posted, that would be a waste of my time and patience. I can see your getting upset over simple asked questions, so I'll just ask one more and that's it. You believe that we should just bomb the crap out of both Iraq and NK?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
whitak24, I dont know where you get your "widely known", since I have a BS in history, centering on European history from 1850-1970. I have read DOZENS of books showing that, while the concentration camps WERE known, the killing of the jewish people was not know. In fact, the "final solution" was not even decided upon until late 1943-1944. Furthermore, there were only 2 camps anywhere west of the german boarder, and those were well away from civilain populations. Thus, the only ones that might have known were the patrol guards, and the civilians living around the camps, which were all polish or czeck, and they were HIGHLY subjugated, you said anything, you were shot or put in there with the others.
well, i'm basing that on what i remember reading at the holocaust musuem when i was there 3 years ago.

i could quite easily be exaggerating it, suffering from an incorrect memory, etc. or the exhibits at the museum were warped. whatever the case, i'll defer to your knowledge here, as mine is fairly limited.

Originally posted by LegendKiller
I think your also confusing a few different points here. You guys seem to be focused on the microeconomic effects of Saddam (oil). However, him destabilizing the whole middle east has macroeconomic effects. Do you think for a second that if we left he wouldn't do anything? Common, get real.
i'm not sure what you mean by microeconomic vs. macroeconomic effects. as far as i can see, we're all looking at the macroeconomic effects of an oil shortage on the u.s. and world economy.

also, i don't think any of are advocating tht we "leave". what i think that canta, jihforce, and i are advocating is that:
1.) we need better proof before we pursue a war with saddam. once again, if there's so much proof out there, then bush and co. are doing a hell of a poor job trying to sell it to america and the world. i have yet to see bush sit down and go through, point by point, why he thinks we need to go to war with saddam. instead, we see repeated statements that saddam is a "bad man" and a "supporter of terror" and posseses "weapons of mass destruction." no discussion of the evidence or why war is the best solution

2.) bush is neglecting other aspects of the "war on terror" in his quest to fight saddam. iraq IS NOT the biggest risk to the u.s. right now. we have him under our finger. he may have WMD, but he's broken down, his army is weak, he's penned in on every side, and he's pretty much gotta behave or face strong retribution.

the real risk to the U.S. is probably under our noses right now, with people planning attacks on municipal water supplies or something else. of course, the bush administration's response to this is to trash our civil liberties :2far:

but instead, we're going after saddam. there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that saddam had anything to do with 9/11 or any other anti-U.S. terror plots. is he a threat? sure, but so is North Korea. so is China. so is Canada. ok, just kidding about that one.

but the point is that there are many threats to U.S. security in the world. right now, i think the most dangerous is al Queda. and yes, i'm sure that U.S. agents are are pursuing them around the world.

but we're also spending a hell of a lot of time, money, and energy on going after saddam. yet we had him contained already.....

it just strikes me as a misapplication of our resources. also, it seems to be a clever way for bush to distract attention from the relative lack of success in the "war on terror" and a floundering domestic economy.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
Thus, IRAQ is failing UN resolutions based on common law which means that the US DOES have room to proceed with whatever action it deems neccessary.
even if everything else is true, if the U.S. is going to profess to be acting by the authority of UN policies, then they should be working with the UN, not running ahead roughshod to do whatever they like.

if iraq is violating UN resolutions, then the UN should deem what actions are necessary, not the US. and i think that's the key problem here. the US is trying to make unilateral decisions and opt in and out of the UN framework as it's convenient.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Jihforce


I can only speak for myself here. I am not opposed to war if concret proof is presented (finding thousands of rockets, chemicals, etc...that haven't been disclosed). I don't mind have tens of thousands of troops standing by for an invasion. Watching Saddam's every move and make him sweat under the collar is not bad thing. However, I do no see why the hunt for Osama should be put on the backburner. I also don't understand why there's not more attention place on North Korea for their nuclear programs which they agreed to abandon but haven't. It just seems to me that we're willing to just jump into war based on a few empty rockets and assumptions while over on the other side of the world we got guys that are very earger to build nukes.

PS-Its still much easier to throw around accusations than to prove anything. Just because its written in law dictionaries it doesn't mean it not flawed. The legal system in the US is by no means perfect. What do you consider "concrete"? Do we have to actually touch the rocket with our bare hands to assume it's real and a threat exists? Does it have to be thousands of rockets or is locating one efficient? Then maybe he can say "oops" we forgot one and just pat him on the back and say don't worry about it. You believe that Osama has been put on the back burners because you haven't heard his name mentioned, Tell that to the soldiers in Afghanistan.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Furthermore, the UN bases its resolutions on British common law. It has nothing to do with the USA, everything to do with what the UN says. Let me repeat that, The UN has set forth that Iraq must obey common law and abiding practices, under this, it MUST prove that it does NOT have WMD's, the burden of proof is on IRAQ according to the UN (NOT the USA). Thus, IRAQ is failing UN resolutions based on common law which means that the US DOES have room to proceed with whatever action it deems neccessary. And from what I understand every country within the UN signed that resolution.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
You believe that Osama has been put on the back burners because you haven't heard his name mentioned, Tell that to the soldiers in Afghanistan.
the soldiers in afghanistan aren't there hunting osama.

they are there to keep the peace, to help establish the new government, and hopefully to help afghanistan to emerge from the displacement of the taliban as a stronger country and able to keep some of the more extreme factions in the country from regaining control.

along with that, they're rooting out some leftover taliban and al queda supporters, but i think it's pretty common knowledge that Osama is long gone from afghanistan.

[TERRIBLETOM]

if iraq is violating UN resolutions, then the UN should deem what actions are necessary, not the US. and i think that's the key problem here. the US is trying to make unilateral decisions and opt in and out of the UN framework as it's convenient. The US is now in a bad positions because several countries (France, Germany) have walked away from the table after signing this resolution, I believe they are failing to uphold there responsibilities. Should we all just turn our backs and walk away?

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by whitak24

the soldiers in afghanistan aren't there hunting osama.

they are there to keep the peace, to help establish the new government, and hopefully to help afghanistan to emerge from the displacement of the taliban as a stronger country and able to keep some of the more extreme factions in the country from regaining control.

along with that, they're rooting out some leftover taliban and al queda supporters, but i think it's pretty common knowledge that Osama is long gone from afghanistan. I agree with most of your statement except for the notion that Osama is long gone, I think it would be a terrible mistake to assume anything of that nature.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
The US is now in a bad positions because several countries (France, Germany) have walked away from the table after signing this resolution, I believe they are failing to uphold there responsibilities. Should we all just turn our backs and walk away?
i agree. we are in a bad position.

unfortunately, we have created that position for ourselves. for the past year, bush has been telling the rest of the world that we will do whatever the hell we want, that we can go it alone vs. iraq, and that we do not need the consensus of the international community to proceed.

we have snubbed our allies, we've played hardball, we've insulted them. now, understandably, they're a little pissed off and aren't really in the mood to cooperate.

now obviously, many of them (most notably germany) have done the same things. (of course, how much of that was a response to what the US did in the first place is debatable)

now you may say that it's just not right -- our allies should be willing to do what's right, etc.

the problem is.....this is all politics. politics is a game, and international politics is a particularly touchy game. bush does not play the game well, because he seems to lack the fundamental understanding of what the rules of the game are.

until we start playing the game, we can expect a lot of failures in getting our policy objectives implemented with much success.....

[whitak24]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
I agree with most of your statement except for the notion that Osama is long gone, I think it would be a terrible mistake to assume anything of that nature.
i think that if osama were still there, he would have been caught/killed by now.

the US got a very good finger on where people were in afghanistan after they took it over (witness the drone that blew up the car containing one of osama's chief assistants last winter). they pretty much bombed the hell out of the al queda hideouts, caves, etc.

from press reports i've seen, the intelligence community thinks that he is probably in hiding somewhere in pakistan, the south pacific, or is back in africa.

whatever the case, soliders in afghanistan are on the lookout for him, i'm sure. but that's not the reason they're there.

[TERRIBLETOM]

I'm sure its much easier to send people to die sitting in an office than it is to do it on the battlefield. The same could be said about sitting in your office and ignoring foreign affairs because they don't effect you directly.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
The same could be said about sitting in your office and ignoring foreign affairs because they don't effect you directly.

I feel like we are beating our heads into a wall trying to get you to be rational. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING DOING NOTHING. WE WANT TO PROCEED INVESTIGATING IRAQ AND WHEN AND IF WE FIND A REASON TO GO TO WAR THEN WE SHALL GO TO WAR. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE CUURENT BUSH PLAN OF GOING TO WAR IF WE FIND SOMETHING OR IF WE DON'T FIND ANYTHING. NO ONE HERE IS SUGGESTING WE IGNORE FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

[TERRIBLETOM]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I feel like we are beating our heads into a wall trying to get you to be rational. WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING DOING NOTHING. WE WANT TO PROCEED INVESTIGATING IRAQ AND WHEN AND IF WE FIND A REASON TO GO TO WAR THEN WE SHALL GO TO WAR. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE CUURENT BUSH PLAN OF GOING TO WAR IF WE FIND SOMETHING OR IF WE DON'T FIND ANYTHING. NO ONE HERE IS SUGGESTING WE IGNORE FOREIGN AFFAIRS. I see your home from work, how did your day go?

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by TERRIBLETOM
The same could be said about sitting in your office and ignoring foreign affairs because they don't effect you directly.

Was that an insult directed at me? Haha. :heh:
Why don't you go back to your daily radio show and get your daily dose of brainwashing.

[Jihforce]

Originally posted by LegendKiller


Jihforce, you are not understanding what I am saying. US law is based on Common Law, which has been set down throughout the centuries.....

I see what you mean...I understand where you're coming from. Now if U.N. declares Iraq being in violation and that war is necessary, then I would go along with it. The problem that most of us are having is GWB wanting to attack regardless.

[TERRIBLETOM]

http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/1102/nextwar.jpg