It's war time...

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Bumpin03 Name a couple ways of taking care of this problem without war.

LOL

by submitting the final resolution that stated a date for him to have 'certian' things destroyed by (not just saying 'blow em up' and leaving it openended).. that gives a 'date' that if he's not complied by we have JUST CAUSE for going in.. Then and ONLY then can you say he's not complying.. putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to do something they don't want to do is going to have them play as many games as they can (from a legal standpoint).. and cry foul at you when you threaten more.. But, if the UN said "you will have all your Al Samoud missles destroyed before Feb 21st, 2003", we KNOW if he's complied.. Then you get MORE inspectors, and tell Saddam that he will sit in a certian spot (a time-out if you will) while we go where we please and check what we like.. then have round-the-clock survailance flights, street checks, etc etc.. and not let him know where we are going..

If at any point, he refuses (and the UN signed the resolution), then the GLOBAL community goes in, we don't take on the brunt of this mess ourselves.. I'd bet that the Iraqi soldiers would be much more likely to surrender and walk away if 4 or 5 major super-powers were flying missions over ALL Iraq and they were being invaded from ALL fronts..

Course, those that think we are just in being there will dismiss this as too late, or he had 17 resolutions, etc etc etc.. The reason most of us that are opposed to the war are actually opposed (not all, most) is because we think Bush didn't at least try.. he hid behind the same BS as all those that think war is a good idea and have dilluded themselves into believing 'we tried all we could'.. bullshit.. no we didnt.. Bush, in the face of seeing missles being destroyed said "too late, we are comming in".. he WALKED away from ANY chance of maybe setteling it peacfully.. is there any guarentee that it would have worked? no.. would there be a LOT more support for the war if we at least tried? I THINK SO.. so do many opposed to the 'current' action.. *shrug*

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW Man you and reality need to stop feuding. Here is what the Jerusalem Post is quoted as saying:

 

 

PEACE

na, that's not a biased source, never mind the US didn't comment on it, and even posted a notice that they may have been premature, and have NOT yet retracted that.. You are taking ONE statement from an entire post where ALL THE REST of the verbage 'implies' but doesn't mention 'confirmed'.. If you are willing to accept Jerusalem word when they have motive to, at a minimum, be hasty with reports, then more power to you.. You are even more pathetic than anyone else on this board.. you and your crownies keep talking about 'believing Saddam over Bush', yet BUSH and his crew have NOT confirmed (and even implied they were mistaken) the reports.. but go ahead, bastardize the world once again to suit your needs.. moron..

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by snova031 so, like I said, you have a problem with the US, move to Iraq, and find an Iraqi forum(if they exist) and write about the problems with their government...think you'll be alive the next day? I think not...and your wife will enjoy the thorough raping, as they take pictures during the process and send them to your whole family.

Dude, let it go.. that argument is getting so pathetic.. if that is all you can say in retorte, then shut up.. EVERYONE KNOWS HE SUCKS.. WE ARE ALL GLAD TO BE AMERICANS.. if you can't understand that, you should just quit posting.. you keep repeating yourself and saying nothing new.. let it go.. post something new..

I don't care what Bush's priorities are in this war, the idea is to get rid of Saddam.

A) it's not our 'right' to impose our views on a different governemnt.. period.. if he was a direct threat to the US, then yes, we may be justified. Had we tried a FULL peaceful attempt and it failed, most people opposed would be in support..

B) The opposition is because OF THE REASON Bush is there.. if he had a justified reason, he would have made his case to the world, not kept being wishy washy and changing his story.. I personally don't think American troops should be dieing for Bush's personal crusade.. He's not worth it.. he's one man.. Hundreds of troops and civilians lives aren't worth his seeking revenge for his daddy and getting more oil.. Just doesn't work out for me... sorry..

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Savant Course, those that think we are just in being there will dismiss this as too late, or he had 17 resolutions, etc etc etc.. The reason most of us that are opposed to the war are actually opposed (not all, most) is because we think Bush didn't at least try.. he hid behind the same BS as all those that think war is a good idea and have dilluded themselves into believing 'we tried all we could'.. bullshit.. no we didnt.. Bush, in the face of seeing missles being destroyed said "too late, we are comming in".. he WALKED away from ANY chance of maybe setteling it peacfully.. is there any guarentee that it would have worked? no.. would there be a LOT more support for the war if we at least tried? I THINK SO.. so do many opposed to the 'current' action.. *shrug*

Exactly. Bush didn't try ANY diplomatic course of action. Just when the UN was ready to issue the FINAL resolutionj, Bush got geared up and sent his troops in.

I can think, off the top of my head, of at least 5 peaceful ways to have ended this conflict. And I'm **** sure that if I can think of them, Bushes advisors can too. The problem is that Bush wanted war and would have settled for nothing less

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by Savant Dude, let it go.. that argument is getting so pathetic.. if that is all you can say in retorte, then shut up.. EVERYONE KNOWS HE SUCKS.. WE ARE ALL GLAD TO BE AMERICANS.. if you can't understand that, you should just quit posting.. you keep repeating yourself and saying nothing new.. let it go.. post something new..

 



 

A) it's not our 'right' to impose our views on a different governemnt.. period.. if he was a direct threat to the US, then yes, we may be justified. Had we tried a FULL peaceful attempt and it failed, most people opposed would be in support..

 

B) The opposition is because OF THE REASON Bush is there.. if he had a justified reason, he would have made his case to the world, not kept being wishy washy and changing his story.. I personally don't think American troops should be dieing for Bush's personal crusade.. He's not worth it.. he's one man.. Hundreds of troops and civilians lives aren't worth his seeking revenge for his daddy and getting more oil.. Just doesn't work out for me... sorry..

dude, it's obvious you have a stick up your ***, you keep saying how Bush is a moron, all Americans are dumb, we are ignorant, gullible, whatever....need I say it YET AGAIN?!?!?!? 

It sure doesn't sound like you are 'glad to be an american'....//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

And are you in Iraq right now? Are you on the battleline? Or are you the one in the Pentagon getting all the inside info? No one can fully speculate reasons as to why we are in Iraq, as you have said there are many things the government keeps from us....

 

I've got something for you...

 

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/anti-war-convo.mp3

 

Listen to this...this is a man from IRAQ discussing the war with an AMERICAN woman who opposes the war...

 

[Bumpin03 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Savant LOL

 

by submitting the final resolution that stated a date for him to have 'certian' things destroyed by (not just saying 'blow em up' and leaving it openended).. that gives a 'date' that if he's not complied by we have JUST CAUSE for going in.. Then and ONLY then can you say he's not complying.. putting a gun to someone's head and telling them to do something they don't want to do is going to have them play as many games as they can (from a legal standpoint).. and cry foul at you when you threaten more.. But, if the UN said "you will have all your Al Samoud missles destroyed before Feb 21st, 2003", we KNOW if he's complied.. Then you get MORE inspectors, and tell Saddam that he will sit in a certian spot (a time-out if you will) while we go where we please and check what we like.. then have round-the-clock survailance flights, street checks, etc etc.. and not let him know where we are going..

 

If at any point, he refuses (and the UN signed the resolution), then the GLOBAL community goes in, we don't take on the brunt of this mess ourselves.. I'd bet that the Iraqi soldiers would be much more likely to surrender and walk away if 4 or 5 major super-powers were flying missions over ALL Iraq and they were being invaded from ALL fronts..

 

Course, those that think we are just in being there will dismiss this as too late, or he had 17 resolutions, etc etc etc.. The reason most of us that are opposed to the war are actually opposed (not all, most) is because we think Bush didn't at least try.. he hid behind the same BS as all those that think war is a good idea and have dilluded themselves into believing 'we tried all we could'.. bullshit.. no we didnt.. Bush, in the face of seeing missles being destroyed said "too late, we are comming in".. he WALKED away from ANY chance of maybe setteling it peacfully.. is there any guarentee that it would have worked? no.. would there be a LOT more support for the war if we at least tried? I THINK SO.. so do many opposed to the 'current' action.. *shrug*

The US has been trying for many many years to get Saddam to give up his weapons and to quit. You and I both know he will never do so. If he did....he would have nothing. His people would most likely kill him. So if he's going to die...might as well die powerful. Here's a good idea...let's give him a specific date telling him when we are going to go in his country and try to kill him. First of all...that tells him when to get out of there and find a hiding spot...therefore we will never find him. Second of all...thats pretty much telling him how much time he has left to get "free" shots in at the US to strike. 3rd...its useless...why would he destroy his own weapons...he has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he does.

All that matters is...the government does hide stuff from their citizens. Therefore the government knows more then us (citizens). Their job is to make decisions like these. It's not all Bush. He has many people working for him that help him and maybe even come up with his decisions. The senate can always override the presidents words on war. So therefore...it seems like the government, for the most part, is unanimous. I think they know better then we do. If your job was to search for information and make decisions on war...then I'd listen to your arguement. But you know nothing compared to what the government knows. Our government treats us good. They make the US a very fair place to live. They aren't out to rule the world. They are protecting us, other countries, and even Iraq. The war is against Saddam...not Iraqi citizens.

 

[Bumpin03 10+ year member]

Originally posted by snova031 dude, it's obvious you have a stick up your ***, you keep saying how Bush is a moron, all Americans are dumb, we are ignorant, gullible, whatever....need I say it YET AGAIN?!?!?!?

 

It sure doesn't sound like you are 'glad to be an american'....//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

 

And are you in Iraq right now? Are you on the battleline? Or are you the one in the Pentagon getting all the inside info? No one can fully speculate reasons as to why we are in Iraq, as you have said there are many things the government keeps from us....

 

I've got something for you...

 

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/anti-war-convo.mp3

 

Listen to this...this is a man from IRAQ discussing the war with an AMERICAN woman who opposes the war...

you can't get there from that site...but go to their main page and its right on the front right in the middle of the page. i just listened to the whole thing and it sounds exactly like this arguement. The guy from Iraq is supporting us attacking and the "little girl" can't explain what kind of peace would be brought across if we leave Saddam in power.

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Bumpin03 The US has been trying for many many years to get Saddam to give up his weapons and to quit. You and I both know he will never do so. If he did....he would have nothing. His people would most likely kill him. So if he's going to die...might as well die powerful. Here's a good idea...let's give him a specific date telling him when we are going to go in his country and try to kill him. First of all...that tells him when to get out of there and find a hiding spot...therefore we will never find him. Second of all...thats pretty much telling him how much time he has left to get "free" shots in at the US to strike. 3rd...its useless...why would he destroy his own weapons...he has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he does.

 

All that matters is...the government does hide stuff from their citizens. Therefore the government knows more then us (citizens). Their job is to make decisions like these. It's not all Bush. He has many people working for him that help him and maybe even come up with his decisions. The senate can always override the presidents words on war. So therefore...it seems like the government, for the most part, is unanimous. I think they know better then we do. If your job was to search for information and make decisions on war...then I'd listen to your arguement. But you know nothing compared to what the government knows. Our government treats us good. They make the US a very fair place to live. They aren't out to rule the world. They are protecting us, other countries, and even Iraq. The war is against Saddam...not Iraqi citizens.

Then why didn't the US go AFTER SADDAM WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE. This war isn't about getting Saddam out, it's about getting the US in.

Had the US bombed Saddam's palace BEFORE declaring war, he probably would've been killed, but the US declared war, gave saddam enough time to get to a safehouse, and then the uS bombed his palace.

Reasons this war is not about getting Saddam out:

1. The US keeps changing it's reasons foir being there

2. Iraq has one of the worlds largest oil reserves. (and everyone knows the US doesn't like trading with Canada, even though Canada lets the US take them for granted)

3. There were many oppertunities BEFORE the war to get rid of Saddam, including 12 years ago.

4. Bush has a personal agenda with Saddam

5. Saddam has been NO threat in the past twelve years, now suddenly the US declares war.

There is NO proof that saddam has WOMD. EVen if we do find them, here is no way now to tell whether he had them before or after the war started. Therefore this cannot be about Saddam having WOMD.

 

[IS300included 10+ year member]

For those of you that think Canada is the our #1 source of Oil:

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)

(Thousand Barrels per Day)

Country Jan-03 Dec-02 YTD 2002 Jan-02 Jan - Dec 2001

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAUDI ARABIA 1,820 1,815 1,521 1,464 1,611

CANADA 1,621 1,490 1,426 1,299 1,356

MEXICO 1,566 1,734 1,490 1,309 1,394

NIGERIA 798 625 567 513 842

IRAQ 600 366 442 988 795

KUWAIT 134 190 212 207 237

This came from

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/cli.html

peace

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Bumpin03 The US has been trying for many many years to get Saddam to give up his weapons and to quit. You and I both know he will never do so. If he did....he would have nothing. His people would most likely kill him. So if he's going to die...might as well die powerful. Here's a good idea...let's give him a specific date telling him when we are going to go in his country and try to kill him. First of all...that tells him when to get out of there and find a hiding spot...therefore we will never find him. Second of all...thats pretty much telling him how much time he has left to get "free" shots in at the US to strike. 3rd...its useless...why would he destroy his own weapons...he has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he does.

As guessed, you simply are regurgitaing false beliefs and innacurate portryals to justify your stance.. THE POINT is, we didn't try 'one last time'... and noone is advocating giving him heads up.. Not me anyway, just the fact that you brought that up shows you can't comprehend what I'm saying.. Again, that's the problem with most Americans, they are dense and swallow the tainted bile given to them by the media.. as do you..

You say he wouldn't destroy his own weapons, YET HE WAS.. destroying Al Samoud-2 missles.. HE WAS, fact.. sorry.. so making the presumtion he is gaurenteed to refuse is, well, just a way for you to give up hope and justify your interpritation of the future.. with no real substance .. *shrug*

All that matters is...the government does hide stuff from their citizens. Therefore the government knows more then us (citizens). Their job is to make decisions like these.

And I think it's an atrocity that people are willing to put the government on auto-pilot and trust that rich corrupt narcisits have OUR best interest in mind.. get a clue..

It's not all Bush. He has many people working for him that help him and maybe even come up with his decisions. The senate can always override the presidents words on war.

Actually, when the Supreme Court was asked to force Congress to vote, the Court said no.. If I'm not mistaken, from a legal standpoint, this is still all up in the air.. I could be wrong though.. Not like the Courts aren't already proven to stand behind Bush, hell, they put him in office..

So therefore...it seems like the government, for the most part, is unanimous. I think they know better then we do.

Actually, just because the government that you could care less about keeping in check decides something is in our best interest doesn't mean it is.. If you believe it's automatic, you are naive and using false logic (but we already know most of your views are based on false logic.. sad..)

If your job was to search for information and make decisions on war...then I'd listen to your arguement. But you know nothing compared to what the government knows.

Lemming..

Our government treats us good.

Perfect example that you have NO clue about our government.. GEEEZ! Of the people, by the people FOR THE PEOPLE.. if they 'try' to treat us badly, we have a RIGHT and OBLIGATION to riot in the streets and take those in power out.. If you can't see that then you have no business being in America.. Sorry..

They make the US a very fair place to live.

As is their job.. your point?

They aren't out to rule the world.

Apparently you didn't read any of the posts about that document and the replies about 'spreading the American Ideals' world wide? Um.. world dominition?.. not that I suspect you bother reading these posts that close, it might force you to stop and re-***** your position..

[b They are protecting us, other countries, and even Iraq. The war is against Saddam...not Iraqi citizens. [/b]

wtf? who ever even implied it was against the citizens of Iraq??? and it is NOT against Saddam in a context that we are being told (to kill him and free his people).. it's about securing more oil, getting a foothold in the Middle East (from that document, as I understand it) for influencing the global community, and Bush - II getting revenge for the link to Saddam and Bush - I's assination plot..

But, what ever.. sometimes it becomes clear that there is no point in debating.. You aren't wanting to debate, nor are you wanting to even read the thread.. While LWW sucks at debating and is fighting a loosing battle, at least he tries..

 

[Bumpin03 10+ year member]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict Then why didn't the US go AFTER SADDAM WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE. This war isn't about getting Saddam out, it's about getting the US in.

Had the US bombed Saddam's palace BEFORE declaring war, he probably would've been killed, but the US declared war, gave saddam enough time to get to a safehouse, and then the uS bombed his palace.

 

Reasons this war is not about getting Saddam out:

 

1. The US keeps changing it's reasons foir being there

2. Iraq has one of the worlds largest oil reserves. (and everyone knows the US doesn't like trading with Canada, even though Canada lets the US take them for granted)

3. There were many oppertunities BEFORE the war to get rid of Saddam, including 12 years ago.

4. Bush has a personal agenda with Saddam

5. Saddam has been NO threat in the past twelve years, now suddenly the US declares war.

 

There is NO proof that saddam has WOMD. EVen if we do find them, here is no way now to tell whether he had them before or after the war started. Therefore this cannot be about Saddam having WOMD.

ahh the Canadian puts down the US also. Yes...Bush's father listened to people like you and Savant and that's why we let him go. Now Bush realizes that was the wrong decision. He won't quit until Saddam is dead or we have him captured. Does it matter when he posessed the weapons?? no..why does it? what matters is..why does he have them now? Who cares if he got them before the war...does that mean he wont use them then? Saddam has been a threat and has been destroying his own country. We just have had people like you that know nothing compared to the government holdin us back.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by snova031 You guys are really something. Honestly, if you hate the President and this country so **** much, why don't you take a trip to Iraq. Seriously, go live there, and try and oppose the government as you are doing now. See how long you live.

 

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Bumpin03 you can't get there from that site...but go to their main page and its right on the front right in the middle of the page. i just listened to the whole thing and it sounds exactly like this arguement. The guy from Iraq is supporting us attacking and the "little girl" can't explain what kind of peace would be brought across if we leave Saddam in power.

man.. you guys need to stop with all the false logic and stop trying to say Anti-Bush/Anti-war is pro-Saddam and Anti-Iraqi citizens.. it's really pathetic how you keep tyring to tie them all togther..

And, more false logic.. Who said anything about leaving Saddam in power? Even with the attempt at peacful resolution? Sniper him.. kill him.. get him out... we didn't really have to go to war at this point to do that.. And, if we had been able to stall him a bit and get some more weapons destroyed we would be at lesser risk, if nothing else..

 

[IS300included 10+ year member]

Originally posted by Bumpin03 ahh the Canadian puts down the US also. Yes...Bush's father listened to people like you and Savant and that's why we let him go. Now Bush realizes that was the wrong decision. He won't quit until Saddam is dead or we have him captured. Does it matter when he posessed the weapons?? no..why does it? what matters is..why does he have them now? Who cares if he got them before the war...does that mean he wont use them then? Saddam has been a threat and has been destroying his own country. We just have had people like you that know nothing compared to the government holdin us back.

The fact that you go to Syracuse talks a lot of shit about our educational system.

 

[Randy Savage 5,000+ posts]

Savant, where do you get your information from, are you sneaking into the White House and stealing government files? I bet you get it from CNN(media)...don't put down the American people for buying into the media when you are doing so...

Do you live in Iraq, are you on the battlefront as we speak? Do not talk like you know all when you probably have no clue what goes on in the inside.