War On Iraq
Posted 19 March 2003 - 09:52 PM
Posted 19 March 2003 - 10:26 PM
Damnit the first bomb has already been dropped....thou art a fool Bush
Posted 20 March 2003 - 12:17 AM
That was a very true statement. I think Bush is following through on that. If not, then to bad, because he’s protecting us from harm. I bet some of you are thinking now, "What harm?" (I had these debates all day through school.) The harm is really there. Saddam might not do it directly, but no matter what, he supports it. He supports attacks on the US. He congratulated whoever did 9-11. What’s next? O, he'd do it directly. He, by a 80% chance, does infact of the artillery to attack the US. And if not, then the country next door like he did in 1991. He has had ten years to get rid of these weapons, and he hasn't. And protesters say "Give'em more time", yes, ten years isn't enough (Sarcastically I say). I'm sorry, but this man should've been taking out in 1991. I don't think Bush wants to impress his dad. I think Bush wants to protect his Nation that he was put in charge of. If we don't take him out, he WILL attack the US, using terrorists he’s trained, or by some other means. Truly the thing that worries me the most, is, who’s next to come to power. (By the way, Sr. Bush, why he didn't finish off Iraq back in 1991, is the U.N. told him to stop, so he did. The U.N. is something for terrorists, and Dictators to hide behind. Nothing more. As my History teacher said, "It looks good on paper, it doesn’t work in reality.") I really think those that are willing to say Bush is stupid and etc. need to take a good hard look at the men and women now fighting for us. I think everyone should know that they DO, infact, need our support. Moral is important. I think before you go bashing on what’s going on, that you should take a good hard look at it, not just now, but also in the many years past. And then, maybe you'll have the right to say something intelligent. Until then, I see no reason for you to post saying Pro-war, or No-War.
Black Blade, Shattered Dreams. Nothing against you guys. This kinda goes out to everyone who is going to end up posting here.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 10:10 AM
Another thing is that i think American are too sheltered(what the media shows) and we are ignorrant to the world around us. We have no idea what it is like to be truly in war. We have never had to worry about going out and getting shot, well i sometimes do because there is some gang violence near me, but no one carries AK47 around. We sometimes think that we are invincible, then 911 hits. Not that many people actually died. Yes it was terrible, but in other countries that many kids die an hour of starvtion.
I also dont want this to be an excuse like 911 for things like the stock market, airline travel, high gas prices, and many other things. That makes everyone think that terroists are going to try another 911? The only things that they do more than once are hijacking, and car bombs.
Enough ranting and raving for me. Ok i hope this ends quick with as little bloodshed as possible.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 11:15 AM
There are two things that really scare me and need to be dealt with.
1) As a result of this war, Terrorist leaders like Bin Laden will use the hatred felt by survivors in the Middle East against us. This is the kind of publicity terrorists can't buy. The hatred could fuel more attacks like Sept. 11th
2) EVEN WORSE is the leader of North Korea, Kim Jung Il. This motherfucker is straight upp crazy. He is the one that needs to be dealt with a SWIFTLY. If N. Korea does have nuclear capabilities, then we are in deep shit my friends. I hope that we are doing intelligence over there right now. There would be unheard of catastrophes if terrorist an N. Korea get together. The sad part is, too, that N. Korea relies on us for food and medical supplies. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds. Fanatical maniacs like Kim Jung Il need to be taken care of. There is no way the UN could debate us on that.
BTW, HOW THE FUCK DID FRANCE GET ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL? PACIFIST PUSSY BITCHES!
Posted 20 March 2003 - 11:47 AM
We slander these countries for being pussies and weak but of the 5 those two countries have been the only one's to actually have an international war fought on their own homelands. Although Britain was the target of uncountable air raids there was never any protracted land-based fighting that took place there. What we witnessed on 9-11 was nothing; NOTHING, compared to the amount of bloodshed and destruction that takes place in a full out land campaign and occupation. Of all the members of the Security Council who are best qualified to judge if the need for war out weighs the effect it will have on the populace? France and Russia.
Now I personally do think that Saddam is an unfit leader and should be removed from power, I also think that action should be taken to neutralize terrorist cells. However I think this must be done as a global effort, despite what we think America cannot take on the world and we depend on these other countries as much as they depend on us if not more. How can we expect 3rd world nations (like Iraq) to comply with the will of the United Nations when we, their largest supporter, clearly have so little respect or regard for them ourselves. Are we then above the UN? Do we not have to answer to them? Then why should Saddam? Or why should North Korea? Think about it.
East Coast Nerf 2009: Quid pro quo, douchebags!
Posted 20 March 2003 - 12:15 PM
Posted 20 March 2003 - 01:01 PM
The U.S. has no moral superiority here- the joke among weapons inspectors was the U.S. was saying "We know Iraq has the weapons." Why? "Well, we have the reciepts."
Administration after administration backed Saddam while he was gassing Kurds and gassing his own people.
We were complicit in all the suffering that Saddam set in motion, and now we're on our way to lay waste to a country full of innocent civilians to kill our own Frankenstein's Monster.
When will you wake up and realize that all these leader's words are completely empty and meaningless? Bush knew the ultimatum wouldn't be heeded, and was prepared to invade no matter what. Saddam actually benefits from the U.N. sanctions against Iraq, so guess what? He makes a demand for the sanctions to be lifted right when there's absolutley no chance of that consideration.
People love giving their power and responsibility to a big central leader though, because all the tough decisions are out of their hands; and of course these bigwigs are going to play rough, since they and their families don't have to do the killing and dying theirselves.
Well I'm sounding really pessimistic here, but truly it's just realism; world relations are real tense and fucked up. I feel the nations should just keep out of each other's business and things will work much more smoothly. As Aleister Crowley said, "Harm it none, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law" (I paraphrased there a little). The signifigance of this is that we don't need a huge honking governance machine to keep society civil. Most people genuinely want to live peacefully, without depending on oppresive cheap labor. We also can see right in our own community where there is harm done. So my message to you is just speak up against wrongs in your own community; that's the best good that you can do.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 01:11 PM
"This is not a poem. This is a promise."
Also check this or other articles about the death of Rachel Corrie, an American Peace activist killed by the Israeli Army. Understand this is all at a web site, "Electronic Infitada" so it is from the viewpoint of Palestinians.
(The poem has references to Iraq, the article's a little Off Topic, if you're to define the topic really narrowly)
Posted 20 March 2003 - 05:26 PM
And please excuse the expletives, they're for emphasis.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 05:26 PM
Mr. Milkbelly - I might add that it's not like WE were just sitting here watching Saddam do all these things all fine and dandy with the outcome. The UN watched it happened and did dick about it all the while cockblocking the US from going in and doing something about it. This is not the US's monster. And yeah, now we are going to go lay many innocents to waste, but is it better that we splurge and do it all at once and end long-term suffering, or do we sit back and say "we don't want to kill innocent people" while Saddam kills them for us? Also, the "bigwigs" making the decesions are the people who are going in and having there families fight and die.... that's us. And really you can't say generally people want to live peacefully. Granted most people don't support war, but if you were to leave all mankind to it's own devices, the same guy who is claiming he doesn't want war and wants to live peacefully is getting in barfights down the street with the guy who just looked at his wife the wrong way. What I'm trying to say is mankind is a generally violent civilization, Utopia is impossible due to human nature, so to dwell on such impossibilites is really rather immature.
Balls to all.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 07:21 PM
France also has a good 16 million Muslims living in their country, so they also have to take into affect that they could have fallout if they went into Iraq. Then again almost every Muslim fully understands that Saddam is a bad guy, repressing, killing, torturing, raping, and murdering his own people. He's killed thousands, and if these "humanitarian" nations want to leave him in power and have no problem with him doing more evils, then we'll do the right thing. And we'll do it like no other.
France isn't trying to buy Saddam more time because they are pacifist pussies, they are (or should I saw were) trying to buy him more time because they have mountains of money invested in Iraqi oil fields. If the U.S. invades and conquers, then the Iraqi people will once again gain control of the oil fields thus leaving France dicked out of lots of money. Of course, I'm not trying to say France is an OK country, you just have their motives all wrong.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 08:10 PM
Funny thing is...well let me put it this way. How many Frenchmen does it take to win a war?......alright, some of you probably heard this already, but its true, no one knows the answer to that question because they've never won a war. When it came down to it in WWII, Hitler came into France, said "Hey, I'm taking you over or I'll start bombing Paris." the French just laid down for him. Now granted, there were pockets of rebels, as there would be in any case like that. But the French as a whole were weak. As for now, they're into arms dealings with Iraq. Yes, that is true. If we go to war with Iraq, and take Saddam out of power, they lose money. Now if you were a smart banker, would you want that to happen to you? I think not. However, if you were ethical...you wouldn't have done it to begin with.
Now enough about France, because I do think that they deserve some respect, and that they aren't the only problem. What about Russia? O yeah...arms...oil...the same thing. They just recently went into a oil deal with Iraq. So yeah. And...China...yeah, China. These guys have been wanting payback for a long time. They've now threatened that if we don't pull out, they will interfere. (Whatever that means) And so forth. Good news is though (yeah! good news!) 40 other nations are backing us right now. Whoopee!
O and Milkbelly, you seriously don't know about the history. I'm talking something totally different then what you’re thinking, waaaayyyy prior to 1991. Another thing
Utopia is impossible, "AMEN!". Its impossible as long as there are beings with intelligent thought. Because not everyone thinks the same, which causes misconceptions, arguments, and ultimately, war. Go read Brave New World , 1984 , and tons of other books that make that rather apparent. Yes, as a whole, people do want peace, as an individual, people think weird things. I've done actually alot of reading, watching, and so on, on the whole Middle East. Alot of it comes back to Muslims and so forth. And that goes much further back then most people think.
Posted 20 March 2003 - 10:15 PM
okay...after only a day of bombing, ground troops were sent in, mostly raw soldiers, and not monstar amount of vechicles. well...this seems crazy; in most wars, one would bomb for days, taking everything important out before sending in troops. now, the reasons i think it's smart to do the opposite: 1. everything we destroy we are going to eventually have to rebuild, because we are planning to take control of their governent. (replace, take over, what's the difference?). 2. it takes 250 million gallons of oil to supply the army in iraq for one day, while on the move. by keeping more of the tanks and vechicles still, we are saving gas, and putting less emphasis on our supply lines. 3. We went in against UN approval, and there are going to be reprocussions. Sending in human soldiers is begging for a chemical or biological response; and if we get one, then we can tell the UN, "I told you so." if we keep bombing, and prevent chemical or biological weapon use, there will be less proof to show the UN, even if it is saving our Marines lives. also, by sending the elitest soldiers (also the ones that will suffer the least damage to chemical or bilogical agents) to charge the capital, we can provoke use, but minimize casualties. 4. we are killing less citizens by sending in humans. 5. it is much easier to negotiate when you aren't inside a tank. surrender negotiations are something that we are definatlely banking on by launching a ground campaign. 6. Iraqi civilians will not see airplanes as saviors, and even if they did, airplanes aren't going to be the ones running the country when we are done. The human element is going to get a lot more people on our side. 7. i think that human soldiers will keep terrorism against civilians at a lower rate. with an enemy you cannot defend against (our planes), one must funnel their angle at the country controlling the planes. with the enemy being someone you can kill(our soldiers), they are the target of your anger.
now, i don't agree with the war. i would have, with UN approval. but, Bush pussed out of the last vote that was scheduled, after seeing that 3 countries were already saying they would say no. i think this is because he wanted the last UN vote before the war, 1441 to be a winning vote. i also don't agree with trying to replace the government in iraq...because i don't think we need to be the worlds police. and if we are going to be the police, there are a lot of other places we could be.
there are definately going to be mass reprocussions from this attack; especially if the ground assult is attacked by weapons of mass destruction. no one is happy when their family members and friends are dead. bush knows this, and still sending them in anyway is smart in the 7 ways i said, plus some; but is also counting on a lot of choices on their part, the biggest being their surrender.
Posted 21 March 2003 - 06:32 AM
Saddam has already fired SCUD missiles, which he was not allowed to have. One must wonder what else he is hiding. This is the time to do something, because it needs to be done. It's a shame we didn't do something earlier when we could have saved maybe a few more lives.
Posted 21 March 2003 - 12:30 PM
Scuds modified for increased range or chem/bio payloads are on the list.
He has not used anything that he wasn't supposed to have.
Posted 21 March 2003 - 01:24 PM
Posted 21 March 2003 - 02:28 PM
I thought that all SCUDs were outlawed due to his use of them in the Iran/Iraq war and the Persian Gulf war. I didn't know that they had to be modified accordingly.
Standard Scuds are not on the prohibited munitions list.
Scuds modified for increased range or chem/bio payloads are on the list.
He has not used anything that he wasn't supposed to have.
Posted 21 March 2003 - 07:29 PM
Posted 21 March 2003 - 10:28 PM
Posted 21 March 2003 - 10:50 PM
"It's so hard to be a fighter when your hands are always tied"
~"Señor Limpio" by Corrosion Of Conformity
Posted 21 March 2003 - 10:56 PM
Ask and ye shall receive!
I havn't read or heard anything about Iraq launching any Scuds in the last few days, where are you getting this from?
Hrm. By following that wonderful link I just posted, I discovered that Evil was right all along. Iraq claimed to have destroyed it's scud arsenal which was in violation of the 150km rule. However, it has not yet been demonstrated that any of the missiles launched were actually scuds. At least two of the missiles are reported to have been Seersucker anti-ship missiles.
Most media are calling them scud launches because they're used to calling Iraqi missiles scuds.
Posted 21 March 2003 - 11:47 PM
If Saddam is watching FOX NEWS like I am, I think he's fully aware of the fact that their's no hope now.
Posted 22 March 2003 - 12:27 AM
SHOE BEATING R0X0rZ!!!!!!!
Man, did you guys see the shoe-to-saddaams face? THAT WAS CLASSIC! I couldn't stop laughing.
*slaps Evil and Vacc with shoe as they are watching movies cuddled up on couch*
*runs really damn fast*
*Evil catches up and holds me down whilst VACC beats my face with his shoe*
:-D Anyway, uh, all I can really do is laugh at them. Sadaam and his little poker buddies are doomed. None of his army really gives a shit about him. They were either forced to join or needed cash. Heh, soon they'll find that door to Sadaam's bunker, where he will be playing poker. The door will be opened, and all of a sudden, all of Sadaam's buddies will run up out that door and try and surrender, because they don't give a shit about Sadaam. They'll try and use their undies as a surrender flag, but, they are all doused in doodie, because they were so scared they shit their pants. So, a man weilding an M60 will kill them all in fear. I would be scared if some men without pants weilding brown poo rags and screaming some gibberish all charged at me. Then, someone will walk down into that bunker, pull out a pistol, and put it to Saddaam's head, and*...
*alternate ending* The bullet misses and Sadaam uses the force to push away the gun, but then the dude takes off his shoe and slaps Sadaam to death.
but we do sh*t and F---"
~Webbster, Foam Improvement.
"I got four points... I sackled you"
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users