What's new

Personal rant...

Agh.. METRIC system. LOL. Sorry, I'm not used to it. I'm guessing that is somewhere around 93 miles?

Anyway, Iraq's missles can reach up for 408 miles. Four times international law allows them. If I am not mistaken, I heard on CCN (from a liberal Anchor, mind you) that suspected areas of where the missles hit were tested postive for.. some kinda nerv gas maybe. I was actually in the bathroom and only heard a little bit. Thereby proving he had biological weapons if I understood right.

"The Scud itself is a ballistic missile, but no WMD."

He has lied about two things, what's to stop him from lying about others?

"We are all aware of the fact that there was no real interest in a peaceful resolution."

Yet we waited 12-13 years to strike? If there was no interest in peaceful resolutions, Bush would have attacked much closer to his inauguration. Hans Blix said he saw some cooperation, but he also said that the Iraqis were indeed playing keep away with something with the inspectors.

Also, if you get CNN in your area, make sure to watch how happy the liberated Iraqis are. They tear Saddam's picutres, shake hands with the troops. One guy took of his shoes and started smacking a portrait of Saddam.

( Augh.. I can't seem to stay out of this debate! xD )
 
Hm, I just noticed this post.

Originally posted by mdchachi
Yes, we don't know. We do however know that there has been many despotic dictators in the world -- in the past and currently. We also know that the U.S. generally turns a blind eye to genocide and evil regimes in places where they have no economic interests. One doesn't need to believe in UFO's or conspiracies to see that oil plays a not insignificant role here.
I think it is one of the pros to war, but I don't see it being the sole, or even a significant reason in the war. What economic good was there in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Western Europe, and other countries? Granted not every fight we've been in was successful, but that just goes to show war isn't waged for economic reasons solely.

Especially considering that they are doing France a favor because french fries are not something the French want to be associated with in the first place.
They shouldn't be. The proper term is "frenched fries." Besides that, their Belgian. That's childish politics for you though.

I think it's a failure on Bush's part that he couldn't resolve this issue diplomatically. But, then, Clinton couldn't either.
Clinton didn't even try.

I definitely disagree with this. History is full of examples of leaders making decisions based on their own personal agenda. Doing something for the good of the people or the world is the exception. Why would anybody care how many people hate them if they could redeem their father's mistakes and enrich themselves and all of their friends. I'm not claiming that this is necessarily the case but I don't discount the possibility.
Of course it's possible, but I don't think it is. Conservatives believe you are responsible for your own actions. Bush is probably one of the most.. well, biased about these feelings. It may be a "typical politician" to do things for personal reason, but every one of you are hypocritical for even thinking that. I guess the French are also working solely on personal motive. I have no doubt that Bush is acting on his feelings of vengeance for everyone: the Iraqis, the American people, and anyone Saddam has hurt. And yes.. his father.

Bush has many reasons for this war. As I've said before, international, personal and economical reasons. What's the problem if it's helping much more than harming?
 
Originally posted by Vicidian
( Augh.. I can't seem to stay out of this debate! xD )

LOL, how often have I told that to myself already.

Anyhow, the mere assumption that someone might be lying is not enough, you have to prove it. Hans Blix has pointed out a couple of times that it would have been possible to disarm Iraq peacefully. However, a peaceful disarmement would not have served U.S strategic interests, namely to station massive troops in Iraq - and they won't be leaving anywhere soon.

Yet we waited 12-13 years to strike? If there was no interest in peaceful resolutions, Bush would have attacked much closer to his inauguration.

There was also no interest in lifting the sanctions: the sanctions allowed to control Iraq and its oil production, to maintain no-fly zones that were bombing grounds for allied aircraft, and they allowed to maintain large US troops contingents in Saudi-Arabia until today: King Khaled Air Base is one of the largest in the region.

Of course, Iraqis are happy to be freed from their oppressor, but this campaign isn't about peace, democracy and doughnuts.
 
Well then, why do you oppose the war? I can understand the opposition of Bush, but why the war? You see how good it is for the Iraqis.

I just read your first part. It is not assumption that they used scud missled that by far exceeded their limit. It is fact.


------- ------- ------- -------
"Blix told the U.N. Security Council this month that it was 'questionable' whether the Iraqis had destroyed all of their Scuds and that about 50 Scud warheads were still unaccounted for.

Even though he wanted more time for inspections, Blix said yesterday that he didn't know if he could ever be sure that Iraq wasn't hiding the illegal missiles."

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/71484.htm
 
You make some interesting good points, Vicidian...and I saw your other debate in that link you had posted...
But, in the end, whether we agree or disagree with each other, it should be enough that we, in our own view, believe ourselves right, and hopefully have also the wisdom to learn from others greater than ourselves...even if we don't agree with them...
One of the great flaws in this current environment is the "you're either with us or against us" mentality. Assuming that the US policy is right, for those that agree with it, that should be enough...you are never going to change the viewpoint of others by force (and that shouldn't be our mission in life, since in the end, the effort of changing viewpoints should rest upon that individual, not for us to change it for them.
As a great conservative friend I have once said, sometimes it's just best to observe and know when to keep quiet...yes, that goes against the grain of many americans, but it is a lesson we should learn to live with...otherwise we end up putting our foot in our mouths, like the French tend to love to do....
The only ones we can change is ourselves....and that's only if we want to....holding these debates is healthy, so long as we understand that that is all it is.....nothing wrong with having pride in one's country, since we all have that to one degree or another....but putting pride before good common sense and judgment creates an environment of intolerance, and wise people don't fall into the trap....
my point is not to try and change your views.....far from it....treasure your values and your views, but also learn what you can from others...if you find your current views flawed, or need tweaking, nobody else need know that....sometimes the hardest thing in the world to do is to know and acknowledge one's own humility, and not let personal pride get in the way of good judgment....
this is not necessarily directed solely to you, Vicidian, but to all, and especially me, since I'm always tending to get into situations that prove that I know less than I should, and I have a far path to tread before I know even a tenth of what I would like... :D

peace dudes.....or war....but in the end, only Death shall claim us all if we are unwise.... :p
 
Originally posted by Vicidian
Well then, why do you oppose the war? I can understand the opposition of Bush, but why the war? You see how good it is for the Iraqis.

I oppose the war, because it has not been sanctioned by the international community and therefore lacks legitimacy. There are certain international rules within the framework of the UN that nations have to comply with. The UN system certainly has its flaws, but by-passing these rules and regulations creates a dangerous precedence in regard to the resolution of future conflicts. As den4 stated in his post, if it really boils down to "with us or against us" the US administration has to acknowledge the fact that they have lost a lot of friends by pursuing their "pro-active" policies.

"Actio et reactio": if this war is also about fighting terrorism, then it is clearly counter-productive. I am afraid that in the end it will lead to more violence.
 
alternatively, and not just to take it from the US advantage, if the UN cannot manage itself in a responsible manner, and cannot form an actual "United" Nations, then perhaps the charter needs some tweaking, also, since it appears that special interest groups within individual nations are allowing functionality of the UN appear as a dysfunctional family of bickering children in the best of times....We need mature representatives that hopefully can seek the betterment of the nations....but I suppose in the current climate that is not likely....

the thing that always amazes me is how fast our technology advances, and yet people remain spinning in the same hamster wheel, going nowhere fast.....stuck in the same problems for countless generations....you can say what you like to suit your personal comfort zones (or security blankets), but the reality is the problems we have today is really not so much different than the ones our ancestors had at the beginning of recorded times....the tools may be different, but the results are always the same.....ain't life grand? :D
 
it seems to me that the bush administration went well out of its way to start this war. after 9/11 we were hunting the deserts of afganistan for bin laden and i even remeber saddam saying he would help the US in anyway possible. then after several months of fruitless searching all of a sudden the attention is turned to hussein and what hes been up to for so long. im very unclear on this connection and what even happened to osama.

i too have met (to use the term loosely) bush when he was still governor of texas, and my impression of him then wasnt very good. what happened was he came to my school for a demosration of distance learning, which is basicly video conferenceing. anyway they locked up everyone in their classrooms but imanaged to forget something and had to go to my car. as i was walking to the parking he was walking in with a couple bodyguards. i figure might as well say 'hi' to the guy, so i walk up n say 'hi' which was returned with a half hearted grunt from bush complete with evil looks from the bodyguards as they stomped on by. i know that i was just a student but still...

I think it is one of the pros to war, but I don't see it being the sole, or even a significant reason in the war. What economic good was there in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Western Europe, and other countries? Granted not every fight we've been in was successful, but that just goes to show war isn't waged for economic reasons solely.

well the US was peddeling herion in vietnam. theres a documentary video on it. i cant quite remember the title but its about Bo Grites (sp?) one of the most decorated officers from that war and how he went to talk to a vietnamese general and he told him about the herion and all that so Grites takes the papers back to the US, which are promptly destroyed, so then he goes back and gets video proof ,which is the documentary, but no one beleives him. its a pretty sad story. the cover has a picture of the statue of liberty crying on it.
 
Haha.. that is a load of bullshit. The only thing that Nam was about about was the containment of Communistic ideas.
 
i find it pretty far fetched that the only reason that the US and other countires sent 100s of thousands of people to their deaths was to stop an idea from spreading in a small jungle country only to just give up and leave one day 30 years later.
 
What about Korea? What possible other reason whould we have to fight there other then containing communism? The cold war too. The only reason so many people died was because no one has ever battled on terrain like Nam. Nixon wasn't just about to call all those troops back in an instant.
 
Re: Michael Moore, I give him credit for voicing his opinion whether I agree with him or not. I thought it ironic though in that Holywood celebrities by their very nature use the exposure they get and their celebrity status to voice their concerns or influence issues they feel are close to their hearts, yet it was the "lowly" and most certainly uncelebrated documentary maker who decided to use the event as a forum to make a political statement, heh. Go figure 8-p
 
the only people who died in the cold war were spies, its not like there were raging battles and air strikes. as for korea i think we were also protecting japan and our interests therein. being that after the japanese lost WWII and had to disband their army the US army/navy was meant to be defending them from attack, especially korea. im not saying that americas involement in these wars wasnt to stop the spread of communism, just that it wasnt the only reason. if you look back on the cold war era, and how scared people (americans) were of the so-called "red-menace" you can easliy see that communism was as good an excuse as any to go to war. while other, less honorable, reasons were left out entirely and nobody even thought to question. all is not what it seems on capital hill.

nixon was elected into office on the pretence of "getting our boys out of nam" yet he sent over another 100,000 troops. hypocritical, no?
 
Those are the WORST conspiracy theories I have ever heard. America using the ideology of containing communism to wage war for the illicit sale of heroin. I'll grant you that no war is fought for one reason in only in the interest of protecting foreigners, but I refuse to believe the Nam thing. Do you realize how many people were disgusted by the government? Ever think they would be lying to further defame those in power at the time?
 
i never said that they waged war to sell heroin, i just said they were selling heroin during the war, and that i saw in a documentary video about this guy which clearly shows US army trucks hauling it around. be it real or fake, i wouldnt put it past the government. i can see no real reason, communistic, dope peddling or otherwise, for the US involement in vietnam. i wasnt around at the time to see these things personaly i cant say anything for sure. but its fun to speculate and debate :p
 
Gus, I have joined the boards today and I have alot of respect for you.

I do realize you are against this unprovoked war, but do this for me

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

it's a link to a clip from a talk radio show. guy calls in, debates w/anti-war protester. well, not really debates, but kinda destroys her. he's an iraqi exile. how would you answer his question, that is, if you can.
 
"How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

Great question btw, and one that is by no means easy to answer. As an Iraqi exile, his perspective is both informative and insightful. And in response to your query of whether or not I am able to answer the question he poses, rest assured I am. Nevertheless, for reasons of my own already stated in the "Why Bush wants war" thread--I simply no longer have the desire to "debate" this sensitive topic. The course of action has already been decided in this matter and the proverbial die has been cast so to speak. Those of us who are opposed to this war will cast ours in the next election...

p.s. You may think my response is merely "dodging the bullet", but I assure you I am by nature a very outspoken individual not afraid to voice my opinion. I simply have chosen (for reasons of my own) to no longer weigh in on discussions of the war with Iraq at this point, nothing personal.
 
Back
Top Bottom