It's war time...

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

I was going back through the thread, just to see the different facts and opinions stated, I decided to list the 10 of each that I figure are most important:

FACTS:

1. Saddam must be removed from power

2. There is no proof that Saddam has or doesn't have WOMD (nukes, bio, chem)

3. Saddam has lied in the past and MAY be doing so now

4. The war is NOT about liberation

5. There was a chem plant found in Iraq, but it is not known as to whether it was used in the construction of chem weapons or not

6. Saddam had illegal scuds/al-sammouds(sp?).

7. Bush does have a personal agenda with Saddam

8. Saddam was reluctantly disarming

9. All diplomatic channels were NOT exhausted before the war

10. There is not enough proof either way of a 9/11 link

OPINIONS:

1. Saddam DOES have WOMD

2. Saddam is insane

3. The war is justified

4. The war is not justified

5. This is the same Gulf War from 1991

6. The war was instigated by Bush and his Govt

7. Bush is only after the oil

8. Saddam posed a threat to the US

9. There is no way, other than war, to remove Saddam from power

10. There was another way

(just thought of this one)

11. Saddam should be maimed, beaten, tortured, and killed in that order

(and this one was so stupid it had to be mentioned)

12. Burning oil fields are WOMD

Now that being done, I can honestly say that this discussion has reached a stalemate. Some of use are firmly against this war, while others see it as prudent. IMO, all diplomatic channels should have been tried before declaring war, this would help to minimize deaths.

Also, a friend mentioned to me, that IF Saddam has WOMD, he might have a trap set for the troops when they reach Baghdad. We know Saddam doesn't care about his people, so what would stop him from detonating a nuke/bio/chem weapon once the allied troops seize baghdad? Just an interesting thought. This is just going on the Assumption that he does have WOMD, although we do not know for sure.

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

the #6 fact is an opinion

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

Originally posted by denim the #6 fact is an opinion

Actually, it has been proven and was all over the news, that Saddam fired illegal scuds/al-sammouds at the allies aircraft

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict Actually, it has been proven and was all over the news, that Saddam fired illegal scuds/al-sammouds at the allies aircraft

shit I am sorry I miss typed I meant #7, I know #6 is a fact, my bad

 

[CarAudioAddict 10+ year member]

NP. Everyone makes mistakes.

And you are correct, after re-examination #7 is opinion (although highly supported even by the pro-war guys)

 

[denim 5,000+ posts]

Originally posted by CarAudioAddict NP. Everyone makes mistakes.

 

And you are correct, after re-examination #7 is opinion (although highly supported even by the pro-war guys)

yeah sorry about that I am typing faster than my brain is moving this morning

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

y, he didnt'.. Bush did, but Jeb helped to confuse things enough to get the court to put Bush in office, nevermind how we should have had a re-vote from the ground up..

Please show any legal precedent or legislation for this. Your story is a lie and you know it. The letter of the law was followed. Jeb excused himself from the issue on day 1. AlBore's campaign manager didn't. Hatred of having lost in spite of countless campaign law violations is what is obviously driving this. The left always cries like a little girl when the populace goes against them.

As to the per day I admit a typo and should have been a week. This does not lessen the argument that it is far more humanitarian to have a war to eliminate Saddam than leave him there.

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Savant I understand what you are saying about false logic, but you misinterpretted my statement. You said it wasn't 6k it was 3k. This really doesn't make much of a difference. Another point is you said he fired only 2 missles so what. Well I guranatee you that he has more than that. THe inspection found a few also. THe inspections weren't working. Yes Sadam let us in, but he wouldn't let us into certain areas. I personally have no respect for the UN anymore, it is quite corrupt. Nations in the UN are helping Iraq get illegal weapons this is known. I'm still unclear as to whether you are for or against a war. You said he went about it wrong. But are you for the war? You can't just walk up pull out a gun and then shoot Sadam. and you're not going to be able to snip him either. He has security and military everywhere, so this probably wouldn't work. I studied the same logic issues as you in school. I took a philosophy class also. The majority of liberals in Ca. are democrats there are very few that are third party. And they do believe democrats good republican bad. You are wrong about the economy. If you take an economics class you should have been taught that the economy doesn't dump instantly it takes time. It was dumping before Bush got in office this is a fact. The technology industry has dropped off. We have lots of workers but we don't need them because the demand isn't that high anymore. The products are so fast there is no need for companies to upgrade and all companies now have good computers. THe guy that said Canada could just come in and start bombing the U.S. doesn't understand the concept. The U.S. isn't killing its people. Again I mention killing his people because he broke this part of the resolution. What do you do create another resolution for him to break.

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

y, he didnt'.. Bush did, but Jeb helped to confuse things enough to get the court to put Bush in office, nevermind how we should have had a re-vote from the ground up..

If Gore would have carried his own state that's right his own state he would have won. Something must be wrong for him to not carry his home state. Gore had his chance. THe votes in Florida were counted over and over again everytime with bush winning.

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/testimony/testimony-1992-09-16.html

(and this one was so stupid it had to be mentioned)

12. Burning oil fields are WOMD

Actually I don't think it was ever said that it WAS but that it WASN'T. In any event consider that the effects estimated from Saddamite Hussinsein's first setting of oil well fires to be up to 1,883 deaths and up to 27,839 illnesses. Let's use REALITY for a change and call the oil well fires a Weapon Of Mass Death and Destruction. Know of what you speak please. There are errors due to being human and there are errors of ignoring the truth. There is a difference.

During, and after Operation Desert Storm, various models were used to predict morbidity (illness), mortality (deaths), and cancer risks due to exposure to the oil well fire smoke. The predictions of these models differed greatly. The predictions of one of these models changed dramatically after real, rather than estimated, information became available. I will contrast the predicted illnesses, deaths, and cancer rates from this model used in the spring of 1991, with the predictions from the same model after a large number of measurements had been taken. In the spring of 1991, the model predicted 27,839 illnesses, 1,883 deaths, and 10,273 cancers per 100,000 population for Al Ahmadi, a populated area near the oil well fires. In October 1991, after actual measurements were used in the model, it predicted only 17 illnesses, 4 deaths, and 0.3 cancers per 100,000 population for Al Ahmadi. The second scenario fits more closely with what PHS physicians and Kuwaiti governmental personnel have reported. It is important that models be validated continually so that the health professionals and the public are not confused.

PEACE

 

[joshpoints 10+ year member]

Savant I'll be honest about the next statement how do we know that he has chemical weapons? The U.S. is the one that gave it to him. That's how we know. Yes the U.S. made a mistke in doing this. If he is unable to show proof of the destruction they must be somewhere. I feel that we should have forced him to destroy these weapons in front of the UN. But again we must remember we are dealing with an evil man. Once you have Anthrax you can continue to reproduce it. It ofcourse reproduces like other things. So he could have multiplied the amount he had, and then destroyed the chemicals that we gave him. This being the case I think the best thing to do is take him out of power. So correct me if I'm wrong you are for getting Sadam out of power, but you would have wanted a war to occur with UN backing. Am I misunderstanding you or is this correct SAvant? Oh one last thing. Your statement of conservative going by feelings is actually incorrect. It is the other way around. I don't go by emotional feelings I go by what is right and wrong. For example abortion is wrong. It is killing a baby. Shouldn't the baby have a choice in their life or death? I believe they should. There is a shortage of babies for adoption. Instead of killing them, why not give them to another family. You may say i'm going by feelings, but killing is wrong. The baby could have been avoided very easily. Don't do the action if you can't take the consequence. Remember what would have happened if Einstein was aborted, along with the many other geniuses that have existed in society. Liberals would say that grades in school are bad. It hurts the children's feelings. THis is deciding with emotion. Grades are needed. Those that accel desserve a symbol of it. Those that don't should not be ignored. It's better to tell a child the truth that they are not doing well rather than not telling them the truth and hurting their future. I could go on in on with the problems that I have with some of the liberal ideologies. So maybe I was wrong. I think we do disagree on almost everything Savant.

Why on an SAT do minorities get extra points for being a minority? Isn't this reverse discrimination? Why should a minority woman with less skills get a job that a man has more skills for? This has happened.

 

[blackgeltabs 5,000+ posts]

I dont know if this has been covered cause im not about to read 29 pages of this. BUT the US is responsible for the creation of Saddam Hussian. Remember back to the Iranian Missle Crissis when the Iatola Khomeini dude was the bada$s in the Middle East?? Well something had to be done about him and at that time the US wasent about to jump into the middle east and take care of him. At that time we would have upset many countries had decently large scale war. So instead we Trained Saddam Hussian and his troops and armed them so they could go get rid of the Iatola Khomeini for us. After Saddam Had taken care of this we left him in power and left him alone until he had sort of gotten out of hand. Then we proposed the gulf War which was basically supposed to be a scrare tactic so that he wouldent continue to do his evil. And it did calm him down for a while but he has been acting up again and we are back to war. So basically we are cleaning up our mess that we created. Im also for the war Go US!!

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by joshpoints Savant I'll be honest about the next statement how do we know that he has chemical weapons? The U.S. is the one that gave it to him. That's how we know. Yes the U.S. made a mistke in doing this. If he is unable to show proof of the destruction they must be somewhere. I feel that we should have forced him to destroy these weapons in front of the UN. But again we must remember we are dealing with an evil man. Once you have Anthrax you can continue to reproduce it. It ofcourse reproduces like other things. So he could have multiplied the amount he had, and then destroyed the chemicals that we gave him. This being the case I think the best thing to do is take him out of power. So correct me if I'm wrong you are for getting Sadam out of power, but you would have wanted a war to occur with UN backing. Am I misunderstanding you or is this correct SAvant? Oh one last thing. Your statement of conservative going by feelings is actually incorrect. It is the other way around. I don't go by emotional feelings I go by what is right and wrong. For example abortion is wrong. It is killing a baby. Shouldn't the baby have a choice in their life or death? I believe they should. There is a shortage of babies for adoption. Instead of killing them, why not give them to another family. You may say i'm going by feelings, but killing is wrong. The baby could have been avoided very easily. Don't do the action if you can't take the consequence. Remember what would have happened if Einstein was aborted, along with the many other geniuses that have existed in society. Liberals would say that grades in school are bad. It hurts the children's feelings. THis is deciding with emotion. Grades are needed. Those that accel desserve a symbol of it. Those that don't should not be ignored. It's better to tell a child the truth that they are not doing well rather than not telling them the truth and hurting their future. I could go on in on with the problems that I have with some of the liberal ideologies. So maybe I was wrong. I think we do disagree on almost everything Savant.

Why on an SAT do minorities get extra points for being a minority? Isn't this reverse discrimination? Why should a minority woman with less skills get a job that a man has more skills for? This has happened.

I'm not going to adress all the points in the ONE LONG paragraph you have.. You don't seem to have understood what I wrote.. Conservatives make laws on what they 'feel' is right or wrong.. Liberals tend to make laws to 'protect' while still allowing for choice.. Abortion is a perfect example and I refuse to get into a long drawn out debate about it here. But, Conservatives fell it's killing and wrong in ALL cases and should be illegal.. Liberals understand that nothing is absolute and different people feel differently about what constitutes a 'baby'. Makeing abortions illegal also removes someone's right to decide for themselves if they feel that a lump of flesh smaller than the tip of your pinky with no internal organs is actually a baby or not. If you were to remove that ***** and give it a bottle, it would NOT live.. if you give a 'baby' a bottle, it eats, then sleeps, then shits.. The point is that Conservatives make laws that force their morality on everyone, not just laws to protect.

As far as weapons go, I don't really care anymore.. It's all moot.. we are at war following a moron with an agenda and nothing else.. we will continue to loose troops thanks to his rushed attack and piss poor plan.. You think it's great that our guys are dying for oil and Bush's pride, good for you, I think it's pathetic. Bush could have done things the 'right' way and we wouldn't be the only people dying over there.. 250,000 troops.. 100,000 more NEXT MONTH.. bah... too little too late.. and Britan has 50,000 and says that's plenty.. WE are fighting this war on our own pretty much, that's pathetic and wrong, especially since Saddam is not and was not a threat to the US.. but, you can't convince Lemmings of that.. Bush said it so it must be golden.. never mind over a week of war and NO EVIDIENCE of WOMD or chem or bio weaps.. Oh, wait, he had chem suits.. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif so do we..

It's funny, I almost thought you (joshpoints) were a tad openmined by asking real questions; Should have listened to myself when I said "self, he's asking things you already posted.. did he read any of this? can he comprehend what he reads?".. but decided to give you the benifit of the doubt.. I should stop doing that too..

There are plenty of 'facts' that show we have no business being in a 'war' .. Didn't someone say we couldn't do this without Congress' support? wrong.. we didn't declare war so we don't need Congress' support.. Bush asked for 'funding' after we went in.. not before.. he didn't get Congressional support.. If I recall correctly, someone posted a link where there were petitions to get the courts to FORCE Congress to vote on the issue, the court said no.. Hmm, the same court that put Bush in office.. go figure.. Now Rumsfeld, jackass who wouldn't give the commanders in the field the troops they wanted, wants congress to give him $1.5 billion in blank checkes? They (Bush/Rummy) are asking for $75 Billion for a 30 day war (that's 1/4 over?) and $1.5 Bill in cash to spend as they see fit, without being 'approved'.. for things like 'fixing the air strip'? Hmm.. wonder where that money will really go.. If Rummy was so concerened about such things, why not make sure his generals had the troops they needed? that was free..

anyway, this is getting to the point of totally pointless.. For those that always follow party lines, or are so 'patriotic' as to think it a 'sin' to question our government, I feel bad for you. For those too closeminded to see what's really going on, I feel bad for you too.. for those to stubborn to admit you are flat out wrong, I feel bad for you too.. but, all you who fall in those groups are the perfect examples of how this country is falling in the shitter fast.. perfect examples and the base cause.. *shrug*

 

[Savant 10+ year member]

Originally posted by LWW http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/testimony/testimony-1992-09-16.html

 

(and this one was so stupid it had to be mentioned)

12. Burning oil fields are WOMD

 

Actually I don't think it was ever said that it WAS but that it WASN'T. In any event consider that the effects estimated from Saddamite Hussinsein's first setting of oil well fires to be up to 1,883 deaths and up to 27,839 illnesses. Let's use REALITY for a change and call the oil well fires a Weapon Of Mass Death and Destruction. Know of what you speak please. There are errors due to being human and there are errors of ignoring the truth. There is a difference.

Ok jackass, I'll play on this too.. EVEN if 'lighting' them turned them INTO WOMD, it only happend AFTER we invaded.. so, again, to try and justify STARTING a war because he has oil wells is ignorant, then to claim them as WOMD AFTER the fact is just as ignorant..

And.. it's not a WEAPON, it's an oil well.. which can cause 'disasters'.. like a nukelear power plant? but since you don't move them around and attack people with them, they are NOT weapons.. and killing a lot of people is not the same as 'destruction', notice how you added that? mass death and destruction.. Small Pox used to kill a lot of people, it was a biological weapon, not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION..

some day you might grow up.. You obviously haven't yet as evidenced by you inane name modifications to cute little pet names.. That's what 8 year old kids do in arguments and fights.. But, we all aready know that you can't argue or debate above a school yard mentality anyway...

I'm done kids.. we can go back and forth till we all go blue in the face.. The people that like ******* on Bush's poisoned milk provider won't be swayed by truth or enlightenment.. to them the word 'supposedly' substantiates as proof.. they double talk and are exceptionally hypocritical.. then try to make others out the same way.. When you have valid positions that are much more thought out than theirs, they respond with 'get out of my country if you dont like it' or try to associate their opponents to the most distasteful of feelings to try and win.. It's juvinile, pointless, and tiring..

With that, I leave you in this thread.. For those of you happy about the war and thinking Bush is justified in his actions, sleep well knowing our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters and mothers and fathers are out there dying at this moment for a people that won't fight for themselves and for a government that is only looking for more oil and a foothold in the middle east to try and get a strangle hold on it in the future..

 

[LWW 10+ year member]

Liberals tend to make laws to 'protect' while still allowing for choice.. Abortion is a perfect example and I refuse to get into a long drawn out debate about it here. But, Conservatives fell it's killing and wrong in ALL cases and should be illegal.. Liberals understand that nothing is absolute and different people feel differently about what constitutes a 'baby'. Makeing abortions illegal also removes someone's right to decide for themselves if they feel that a lump of flesh smaller than the tip of your pinky with no internal organs is actually a baby or not. If you were to remove that ***** and give it a bottle, it would NOT live.. if you give a 'baby' a bottle, it eats, then sleeps, then shits.. The point is that Conservatives make laws that force their morality on everyone, not just laws to protect.

Ahhh...the ultime puke. Nobody has a right to punish the GUILTY but anyone has the right to kill the INNOCENT?

First off very few abortions are on non viable fetuses. Second and living thing is alaive. Third a disabled person or someone in a nursing home is unable to survive without care either. Shall we kill them when they are demmed inconvenient?

Never discuss morals with anyone if this is your core belief for you have none.

In REALITY conservatives try to punish the GUILTY and protect the INNOCENT. Liberals want excuses and gubmint programs to remove the GUILT from the GUILTY and insist that the INNOCENT pay the costs whether they be financial, emotional, physical, or societal.

R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. REALITY. Good for you. Good for me. RAELITY. Try it. I think you'll like it.

PEACE