# Forum About Russia Politics  Operation Iraqi Freedom

## V

Well this is related to Russia, since they're against it. I'm surprised nobody has started this topic yet. What's everybody's opinions? Also cast your vote!  ::

----------


## Tu-160

I don't support this war, I don't support usa.

----------


## Methos

I hate the fact that the way the world is today, it is difficult to say you're against the war without been accused of being anti-american. 
I like America very much, but I am completely behind Russia on this one. This war is a huge mistake. The outcome of this war isn't in doubt, but by starting this war, George Bush has probably started the biggest ever membership drive in Al Qaeda's history. 
This is not a happy time.... 
Phil

----------


## V

It seems the left is only aware of the bad things that the war will result in. The war _will_ result in some really nasty things, but you have to realize this: without a war, we would have a *disaster*

----------


## raskolnik

kinda with you on that one V

----------


## z80

First of all, I would like to express a slightly different view, though one that is more common in Australia. 
I do not support the USA's school yard bully tactics. What would happen if the rest of the world though that Geroge Bush was bad for his country and a threat to world peace (Which he is) and as such the rest of the world came in and attempted regime change??? I bet he wouldn't like that. 
The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job.  The UN was handling it (Admit idly the US pressuring Iraq had a lot to do with there co-operation). 
Should the UN weponds inspectors feel they where being hampered, and then the US submitted another resolution to the UN saying that Iraq was in breach of the accord, and a vote was then taken on, and passed, then a group of UN backed countries could go in and force Iraq to disarm. 
This war is as Illegal as Iraqs invasion of Kuwate, but, will the US, Australia, and the UK be held responsible for there illegal actions? I truly hope so. 
This is a sad day for international co-operation, the United Nations, and world stability. 
As an Australian I feel discrased that our leader is just as stupied and dumb as Americas, may be even more so because he is just following like a sheep.

----------


## Rahul

Everyone is saying this war is bad but they are not saying what exactly is bad about this. Except for V.

----------


## russkayalove

Iraq terrorized Kuwate, so why should they be spared against US's attacks. They are terrorists (not speaking of the average citizens, who are victems). I know this war doesn't directly relate to 9/11, but that day opened Bush's eyes to terrorists in general, like Sadam. Knowone can trust Sadam, he has proven that. Bush is doing his duty as president. He wants the best for his country. War with Iraq brings all nations closer to peace in the long run, and even the people of Iraq. Bush is a strong president, this is what I think, and until someone can convince me otherwize, Im sticking to it.

----------


## Rahul

You are 100% right russkayalove. Besides, I think if the victims of Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti people and the Iraqi people both want him gone and approve of US military action against Saddam Hussein, so what right does France and Germany and Russia have to say no? Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice. 
And do realize that there are 40 countries supporting this war, so don't refer to this is as "US action" anymore. 
I want to see if you will have the same opinions against the war when all those archives are opened up revealing the attrocities committed by this despot.

----------


## z80

I for one am getting sick of the word terrorist. It is now a term that the USA uses to describe any one it hates. 
The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.  
The USA does some pretty dam nasty stuff to people around the world where they have no business, the best example is the palistinians suffering at the hands of the jews, and it's the USA in the UN that continually use it's veto to protect israel against UN condemnation and action. 
I'm not saying what Osama Bin Lardins mob did was right, What I'm trying to say is that it's not as clear cut as most of the American public are lead to bereave, and if citizen of the USA beleaves that there counties is moral and just, then they are only kidding them selfs.

----------


## Rahul

> I for one am getting sick of the word terrorist. It is now a term that the USA uses to describe any one it hates. 
> The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.  
> The USA does some pretty dam nasty stuff to people around the world where they have no business, the best example is the palistinians suffering at the hands of the jews, and it's the USA in the UN that continually use it's veto to protect israel against UN condemnation and action. 
> I'm not saying what Osama Bin Lardins mob did was right, What I'm trying to say is that it's not as clear cut as most of the American public are lead to bereave, and if citizen of the USA beleaves that there counties is moral and just, then they are only kidding them selfs.

 Well I would agree with you on the Israel-Palestine issue. I am not against Jews or any religion but I feel that there is too much Jewish influence in American politics and this is causing them to turn a blind eye to the Palestineans. I don't want Israelis thrown out of Israel but at the same time, I would like to see the creation of a Palestinian state. 
Do Russians (as a whole society) have an opinion on this?

----------


## Scorpio

So, the war began. Welcome to the age of new colonialism and oppression of poor countries by the rich ones! Back to the 19th century...

----------


## scotcher

I'm not against the war because I support Saddam Hussein, I am against the war because the Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Ashcroft/ Perle et al  neoconservative new world order movement scares the hell out of me.

----------


## solanum

it scares me too. 
i cannot see any reason, why they started this war. Hussein did not do anything against the us. he did not attack them. of course he is a dictator, but iraquis have to get rid of him themselves. they have to make revolution or something. 
the us always think, they are some kind of "world police". they should keep out of other countries businesses.
and by the way: this war is not supposed to be a help for the iraque people - it is about money and oil. it is supposed to make mister bush feel a bit more powerful.
and history teaches us, that the us always started unprovoked, useless wars....

----------


## mike

> You are 100% right russkayalove. Besides, I think if the victims of Saddam Hussein, the Kuwaiti people and the Iraqi people both want him gone and approve of US military action against Saddam Hussein, so what right does France and Germany and Russia have to say no?

 Uh, France Germany and Russia have a right to say whatever they want.  That is the purpose of the UN Security Council.  It's not called the US Security Council.   

> Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice.

 Well, great.  Here is a list of people who also _should have been_ preemptively killed or brought to justice by your logic: 
Pinochet in Chile
Armas in Guatemala
The Shah of Iran
Mobuto in Zaire
Velasco in Ecuador
Goulart in Brazil
Arosemana in Ecuador
Suharto in Indonesia
Papandreous in Greece
Torres in Bolivia 
They executed, tortured, kidnapped, raped, and imprisoned more people than Saddam ever has.  Know what the difference is?  *We* put them there.  Saddam used to be on that list, but then he bit the hand that fed him.   

> And do realize that there are 40 countries supporting this war, so don't refer to this is as "US action" anymore.

 Yes, countries like Latvia and Poland.  It is only the insignificant countries like China, Russia and Germany that are opposed to it.  I'm sure Lithuania's contribution of five-dollar gift certificates to the war effort will be greatly appreciated.  Why don't you research how many of these countries are going to be getting financial aid from the US as part of next year's budget?   

> I want to see if you will have the same opinions against the war when all those archives are opened up revealing the attrocities committed by this despot.

 Who?  Saddam or us?  The government usually declassifies their atrocities every ten years or so, and this information can be found by the Freedom of Information Act.  Except Reagan's White House papers.  Bush successfully blocked their release a year or two ago for some reason (probably because of incriminating stuff against his daddy).  Why don't you ask someone who had a family member killed by SAVAK or Mossad how much the US cares about installing peace-loving democracies in the Middle East.   

> Iraq terrorized Kuwate, so why should they be spared against US's attacks. They are terrorists (not speaking of the average citizens, who are victems). I know this war doesn't directly relate to 9/11, but that day opened Bush's eyes to terrorists in general, like Sadam. Knowone can trust Sadam, he has proven that. Bush is doing his duty as president. He wants the best for his country. War with Iraq brings all nations closer to peace in the long run, and even the people of Iraq.

 Oh, were Bush's eyes closed when the White House blocked an FBI attempt to investigate the bin Laden family in early 2001?  How come one month before 9/11 the US failed to secure an oil pipeline contract with the Taleban--a group that knowingly harbored al-Qaeda yet we kept sending billions of dollars to until late 2001?   

> Bush is a strong president, this is what I think, and until someone can convince me otherwize, Im sticking to it.

 Strong?  Give me a break.  He can't even eat a pretzel and watch television at the same time.  http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bush.htm 
Edit:  Wrote Mossadegh, meant Shah.

----------


## redchupacabra

I support this war. No one in their right minds wants to just have a war. There is a time and place for everything. So the question should be, "Is now the time for war?" 
I think the greatest potential enemy for any body(country) are the people who live inside it. Fear and unuinity will bring down a nation much faster than a small group of terrorists armed with a couple of dollars and razor blades. Terrorists know this, how come we don't? Do you know what it means to "be in terror?" They didn't give them the name for fun. Most of the damage of wars this century will come from what and how people chose to do after the fact. 
I support the war and I support Russia. I hope people who are against this war will not be bitter about the USA and will keep our relations going strong. If people make stupid comments and their hearts become hardened then the greatest damage was never done by any terrorist cell, regime, or war. Instead, we caused the downfall of the world. 
[Quote=Mike] 

> Strong? Give me a break. He can't even eat a pretzel and watch television at the same time.

  Have you choked on food before? I guess not because that must make you a p**** too. I dont think I will comment anymore on that. I think the foolshness is as evident as the sun is bright.  
[Quote=z80] 

> The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.

  Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.  
[Quote=z80] 

> The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job. The UN was handling it

  That's right. They were doing their job. They were taken around like lapdogs asked to sniff their noses in playgrounds, people's lunch boxes, and underwear. This is always an interesting comment that usually younger people make who have not been around long enough to have learned Saddam's trustworthiness and his character from history. But if you want to believe that Saddam was "born again" and decided to love his neighbor instead of cutting his tounge out then thats fine. The truth is the whole world knows he has weapons. I don't think this fact was ever in question. The real question to the world was, should we do anything about it? That was and always is the real question! The start of WWII was the same. Germany was told that it was not supposed to go over a certain number of military arms and it did. The world knew it and decided to do nothing about it. The United States as well did nothing and acted much to late. I can't help thinking the same with Iraq, that this was a ticking bomb about to go off. Oh and P.S. I am sure if we had weapons inspectors back then, they would have done just as well as today.  ::   
[Quote=V] 

> Well this is related to Russia, since they're against it. I'm surprised nobody has started this topic yet. What's everybody's opinions? Also cast your vote!

 My opinion is that everyone was holding their breathe waiting for someone to(in my opinion) make a mistake and open the door to a hell. Instead of building eachother up and coming to rational conclusions we have all inheareted from the media bickering attitudes that will not build us up nor the world. 
your friend, 
Redchupacabra

----------


## russkayalove

Rahul, Im glad we can agree on some things  ::  , but you think there is too much Jewish influence in American government, and thats how you draw a conclusion about the Israel-Palestein situation? If there is any religous beleif that influences America's government, its definately not that of Jewish.  
It is apparant that many feel as though American people are brainwashed by their government, but where do you get these ideas from, your government? I could just as easily say you are brainwashed as well.  Many of us are here to learn about Russia, Right? So we ask questions, many of which are directed toward people who live there, or are from there. Why, because they would know first hand. America is extremely diverse, and we all have an opinion of our own about what our government is doing. People in other countries have a right to their opinion about America as well, but it is suprizing to me to see how many people think they know so much about this countries citizens. Who tells you these things? I honestly don't think anyone can really know better about the citizens of a country than a citizen himself. Some citizens here agree with what Bush is doing, yet many dont, and clearly voice their opion about it, which they have the right to do.  The bottom line, the government is not the people, the people are not the government, and one person is not every person.

----------


## Tu-160

Here are my thoughts. 
In this war USA are only invaders. Those one puprose is to gain access to oil and to take control over asiatic countries such as Saudi arabia, India, China and others. Territory of Iraq is very comfortable to locate arms and weapons of mass destruction (but this one is not needed) and by means of it they will be able to use it as argument while contacting with other countries. But it is not enough just to begin the war. There must be a reason. And USA thought up that reason. They said that it is a citadel of terrorism, that Saddam has weapon of mass destruction, that he kill many people. Because of it they decided to eliminate whole Iraq.
But who they are these terrorists? I suppose that it is little boys that have one "hobby"to kill and explode people. Not for something, just for pleasure. But usually people want just to live and with no having any problems. A man kill a man only if he can get a big advantage. When do terrorists can get any advantages while killing somebody? Only if they recieve money for it (or when they avenge). I doubt that when I would come to USA and explode a building my bank account will grow up. Terrorism is not profitable for Asia. Terrorism was made by USA as argument against any country and only USA pay for it.
Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?
If Saddam killes his citizens it is only internal problem of Iraq. It is not a deal of USA. Problems of any country can be solved only by the whole world (United Nations Organization). They can send there their people and to make control over citizens' security. But USA prefers not to listen to other countries. They begin war with no advices and only because of it I call them invaders.
But it was not a mistake. Bush knows what he wants. He needs country that will belong only to him, not to UN. This war is not only for oil. This war is for whole world power. And after that war there will be others. With North Korea, India, Pakistan, somebody else and then it will be Russia. In the end of 21 century we will see the world with small heap of reach fat people in the US government and big amount of poor muddy beggers working for their profit.   

> I feel that there is too much Jewish influence in American politics

 Not only in USA, Rahul  ::

----------


## redchupacabra

> But who they are these terrorists? I suppose that it is little boys that have one "hobby"—to kill and explode people. Not for something, just for pleasure. But usually people want just to live and with no having any problems. A man kill a man only if he can get a big advantage. When do terrorists can get any advantages while killing somebody? Only if they recieve money for it (or when they avenge). I doubt that when I would come to USA and explode a building my bank account will grow up. Terrorism is not profitable for Asia.

 But see your problem is your trying to reason insanity. There is nothing logical about terrorism or religious finaticisim. They don't share any profits. They are dead. It is all for an idea or cause. (Jihad). They have a belief that good things will happen to them. The problem with the approach is that we still haven't succesully crawled into the shoes of the teorririst himself, or maybe we would just rather not believe that people just like thousands of years ago declare holy wars and do the such. I am unsure though, if we honestly don't understand or we are affraid to come to grips that we may have to fight insanity itself.   

> In this war USA are only invaders. Those one puprose is to gain access to oil and to take control over asiatic countries such as Saudi arabia, India, China and others.

 Wow, that is a big list. Is that all? The USA bent on world domination? Well if thats how other countries percieve us I am quite scared. Besides if other countries had participated I am sure the USA would have incorporated everyone to the reconstruction plan. Why should we give i.e. France a say so in the reconstruction. They gave nothing towards it why should they recieve any? There are 35 some countries that helped the coalition. You forget UK and Spain will have a say so in this as well. People keep referring to U.S. this, U.S. that but there are 35 other countries that have given their help.   

> Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?

  Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms. There is a potential evil for any type of thing you compare. Guns. Guns are great. You can use them for getting your family food, or you can use them for evil. There is always a potential good and evil for everything. Therefore, now you might see why we would be scared about Saddam having a nuclear weapon versus Russia. Infact the inventor of the thompson machine gun realized this as well.   

> If Saddam killes his citizens it is only internal problem of Iraq. It is not a deal of USA. Problems of any country can be solved only by the whole world (United Nations Organization). They can send there their people and to make control over citizens' security. But USA prefers not to listen to other countries. They begin war with no advices and only because of it I call them invaders.

  Well, but see you contradicted yourself. If it is only problems of Iraq then neither USA or UN should do anything. And don't forget that if USA didn't want to listen to other countries or do this without respect they would have never went to the U.N. in the first place. 
Here is what I think. I think the U.N. if it can't follow up on its own decrees then its worthless. I believe it's a good humanitarian organization but it needs to be able to act. Infact I think that it needs reform and needs the ability to act. If it passes a law saying if Country A has X and uses X then Course of action B will be followed immediatly. But if they go in and vote on everything all over again just so it can be struck down there is a pointlessness problem.  
Your friend,
Redchupacabra 
P.S. I am thinking about working for the U.N. after colllege.

----------


## russkayalove

"Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?" 
To answer your question, Russia, China, and England do not terrorize other innocent countries, or harbor groups which do. Sadam is not innocent and cannot be trusted. People say the American government is the bully, but I always saw a bully as someone with more power who beats on an INNOCENT person whom of which is weaker.  Everyone knows that Sadam is not innocent, he deserves whats come to him. I think America knows what a bully is, especially after 9/11 when innocent people were killed by them.

----------


## Tu-160

> But see your problem is your trying to reason insanity. There is nothing logical about terrorism or religious finaticisim. They don't share any profits. They are dead. It is all for an idea or cause...

 What the religion you are speaking about? Is it islam? But islam is very peaceful religion. A muslim never kill people. I live in islamic region of Russia and have many muslim friends. We do not fight with each other because of religion fanaticism. This insanity you are speaking about is simple banditry. And we can only guess who needed to change this peaceful religion so terribly. Can it be truth that this was made only to link banditry with moslem world? And who have brought up this behaviour?   

> Wow, that is a big list. Is that all? The USA bent on world domination? Well if thats how other countries percieve us I am quite scared. Besides if other countries had participated...

 Yes, surely, they bent on world domination. They do not participate other countries. USA will be a stupid child if they will share their power with other countries. By the way, country and its government is not the same thing. When a government helps to other country it does not mean that it is profitable for this government and that citizens support this help. It is rather means that some members of this government have their own private profits. At least I use the example of Russia. I just want to say maybe USA incorporates some governments but not whole countries.   

> Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms. There is a potential...

 It will be better that all countries would not have nuclear weapon. These countries work to lower, especially Russia. Within 5-7 years it will have no nuclear weapon ( :: ). But this sentense is not about USA.   

> Well, but see you contradicted yourself. If it is only problems of Iraq then neither USA or UN should do anything. And don't forget...

 If idealize, then really, no one may touch internal problems of any country. But UN was created to help people. And if Iraqi people will not resist it have rights to help them. I doubt that Iraqis will begin fight with them. If so then they want to live with Saddam and we can do nothing. UN must go out. In any case Iraqis have much more rights to decide how to live than UN. 
Russkaylove: if you so surely say that 9/11 was made by Saddam then I will surely say that it was made by someone from US government. They got a perfect reason to call terrorists the whole world.

----------


## redchupacabra

I wont respond to what you posted because I didn't come to those conclusions, did I? Muslim never kill peopole huh? Well unfortunatly there is proof your wrong. I would say go ask the victims of september 11th and maybe your country's moscow theatre crisis(but I could see that you could argue that they killed no one; that the government killed them all.) Religion doesn't kill people(physically speaking   ::  ) People kill people. Now I guess a Christian gone of the deep end could read about a story in the bible about delivering the Jews from the hands of their enemies, decide he was God, and went to kill everyone but the jewsh people. Where as an Muslim could read Surah chapter 9 "go out and lie in wait for the people of the book (jews, paegans, christians) smite them everywhere you see them." Then I guess he could join hizbullah or something and do the same. Oh and yes, I have an islamic friend as well so what? I think you are trying to put words in my mouth to make me look like a religious racist pig. 
Well, I dont think so. 
And it looks like we are going to prove my theory and just lock this forum. 
Anyway, I probably wont be able to post for the next couple of days I will be working pretty much non stop. Best of luck. 
Your friend, 
Redchupacabra

----------


## V

Lots of comments about stupid American politics, why George Bush sucks, who we should do the same to...but I don't see many arguments against the war on Iraq.

----------


## mike

> Have you choked on food before? I guess not because that must make you a p**** too. I dont think I will comment anymore on that. I think the foolshness is as evident as the sun is bright.

 I've never choked on food to the point where I black out for 20 minutes and injured my eye.  He must've been really eager to swallow those Rold Golds.   

> The USA is no more or less of a terrorist organization that Al quata or what ever the hell they call them selfs.
> 			
> 		   Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.

 1.  Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States.  Those numbers ain't low.
2.  Ask a Cherokee about this one.
3.  Ever hear of Manifest Destiny?  How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?"  By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack.  There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.    

> The UN weponds inspectors where doing there job. The UN was handling it
> 			
> 		   That's right. They were doing their job. They were taken around like lapdogs asked to sniff their noses in playgrounds, people's lunch boxes, and underwear.

 Uh, no.  The inspectors were given free access to go anywhere they wanted, and the intelligence communities of the United States (among others) gave plenty of information to the inspectors about suspected sites.  Know what happened?  None of them turned out to be producing anything.    

> This is always an interesting comment that usually younger people make who have not been around long enough to have learned Saddam's trustworthiness and his character from history. But if you want to believe that Saddam was "born again" and decided to love his neighbor instead of cutting his tounge out then thats fine. The truth is the whole world knows he has weapons. I don't think this fact was ever in question. The real question to the world was, should we do anything about it? That was and always is the real question!

 Yes, the world was doing something about it.  By the way, in early January Ari Fleischer made a comment that the White House wanted regime change, not disarmament.  Disarmament was just the excuse.   

> The start of WWII was the same. Germany was told that it was not supposed to go over a certain number of military arms and it did. The world knew it and decided to do nothing about it. The United States as well did nothing and acted much to late. I can't help thinking the same with Iraq, that this was a ticking bomb about to go off. Oh and P.S. I am sure if we had weapons inspectors back then, they would have done just as well as today.

 This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war.  Hitler made it perfectly clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted to reclaim all of the areas stolen from him in World War 1.  Where is any microscopic strand of evidence Saddam Hussein is planning to conquer the world with these alleged weapons?  Hitler also built up a strong army that we clearly knew about but violated the armistice agreement.  Hussein's army is a collapsing piece of garbage that posed a minor threat 12 years ago and poses just about no threat today.  Oh and P.S. the US not only knew about the weapons but helped build them.  Henry Ford was personally responsible for financing and manufacturing illegal tanks and artillery for the Nazis and received Germany's highest civilian honor in the 30s for his service to the Fatherland.   

> My opinion is that everyone was holding their breathe waiting for someone to(in my opinion) make a mistake and open the door to a hell. Instead of building eachother up and coming to rational conclusions we have all inheareted from the media bickering attitudes that will not build us up nor the world.

 Oh yeah, our media is just full of dissenting opinions.

----------


## V

Come on! Do you really think we support killing all god damned native Americans? Do you think we killed them? *And do you think we give two sh*ts about what the f***ing war is called?*

----------


## mike

> But see your problem is your trying to reason insanity. There is nothing logical about terrorism or religious finaticisim.

 I would say there's nothing logical about religion in general, but that's just me.   

> They don't share any profits. They are dead. It is all for an idea or cause. (Jihad). They have a belief that good things will happen to them. The problem with the approach is that we still haven't succesully crawled into the shoes of the teorririst himself, or maybe we would just rather not believe that people just like thousands of years ago declare holy wars and do the such. I am unsure though, if we honestly don't understand or we are affraid to come to grips that we may have to fight insanity itself.

 People declared holy wars less than a thousand years ago.  Take a look at the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the conquest of Africa, South and North America.   

> Isn't it wonderful that some of the countries you mentioned are Democratic governments that comply and work to lower nuclear arms.

 Like the US, which pulled out of the anti-proliferation treaty and is creating new types of weapons as we speak?   

> There is a potential evil for any type of thing you compare. Guns. Guns are great. You can use them for getting your family food, or you can use them for evil. There is always a potential good and evil for everything. Therefore, now you might see why we would be scared about Saddam having a nuclear weapon versus Russia. Infact the inventor of the thompson machine gun realized this as well.

 The problem is, Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons.  He has chemical weapons that he can only launch at most 100km.  If a terrorist plans to use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies it isn't going to be in a conventional bomb coming from someone as obvious as Iraq.  It's going to be on a suitcase in a bus in downtown Manhattan.  But we don't care about stopping those kinds of things.  They aren't profitable.   

> Well, but see you contradicted yourself. If it is only problems of Iraq then neither USA or UN should do anything. And don't forget that if USA didn't want to listen to other countries or do this without respect they would have never went to the U.N. in the first place.

 Public relations.  The Security Council wouldn't authorize a resolution on Iraq unless it did not automatically authorize force.  We agreed and it passed unanimously.  Then we don't bother to even get a second resolution authorizing force and just invade.   

> Here is what I think. I think the U.N. if it can't follow up on its own decrees then its worthless. I believe it's a good humanitarian organization but it needs to be able to act. Infact I think that it needs reform and needs the ability to act. If it passes a law saying if Country A has X and uses X then Course of action B will be followed immediatly. But if they go in and vote on everything all over again just so it can be struck down there is a pointlessness problem.

 Yes, you're right.  Unfortunately the most flagrant ignorer of UN conventions right now is the one we live in (with the exception of Israel, which has violated something like 32 resolutions).  If the UN really wants to be relevant it will impose sanctions on the United States and bring people like Henry Kissinger and Ariel Sharon (actually it will, but until he is out of power he is immune) to the ICC to stand trial for war crimes.  But this won't happen.  The United States is above the UN, which is why we didn't bother trying to get a second UN resolution authorizing force and went ahead with our illegal war.

----------


## solanum

of course you killed them! 
@ mike:
and i agree with you ( in almost every point ). 
are you the one who studies history? if yes: did or did not the us support hitler with money and weapons? (wich could be compared to the situation with hussein)
and: when japan joined WWII the government of the usa had citizens of japanese origin put in camps?

----------


## mike

> I wont respond to what you posted because I didn't come to those conclusions, did I? Muslim never kill peopole huh? Well unfortunatly there is proof your wrong. I would say go ask the victims of september 11th and maybe your country's moscow theatre crisis(but I could see that you could argue that they killed no one; that the government killed them all.) Religion doesn't kill people(physically speaking   ) People kill people.

 It is funny that you used the NRA slogan for it.  I guess in that capacity, religion is like a gun.  A useful tool for controlling and scaring people.  Ironically, many people who have one too often have the other.   

> Now I guess a Christian gone of the deep end could read about a story in the bible about delivering the Jews from the hands of their enemies, decide he was God, and went to kill everyone but the jewsh people.  Where as an Muslim could read Surah chapter 9 "go out and lie in wait for the people of the book (jews, paegans, christians) smite them everywhere you see them." Then I guess he could join hizbullah or something and do the same. Oh and yes, I have an islamic friend as well so what? I think you are trying to put words in my mouth to make me look like a religious racist pig.

 Or if the Muslim wanted inspiration for his religious intolerance he could read Exodus 31:14, which says, "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." 
Or 34:12, "Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:  But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves." 
Or Leviticus 20:27, "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." 
Or 24:14, "Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him." 
Or 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." 
Or Numbers 1:51, "And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death." 
Or Deuteronomy 17:12, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel."   

> Well, I dont think so. 
> And it looks like we are going to prove my theory and just lock this forum. 
> Anyway, I probably wont be able to post for the next couple of days I will be working pretty much non stop. Best of luck.

 Yeah, real shame.

----------


## mike

> of course you killed them! 
> @ mike:
> and i agree with you ( in almost every point ). 
> are you the one who studies history? if yes: did or did not the us support hitler with money and weapons? (wich could be compared to the situation with hussein)

 I don't believe we sent them money and weapons (excluding privateers like the aforementioned Ford).  We sent money and weapons illegally to England while remaining "neutral," though.   

> and: when japan joined WWII the government of the usa had citizens of japanese origin put in camps?

 Yes, internment camps.  It was mostly Asians in general.

----------


## mike

By the way, V, why did you remove the poll from this topic?  Were you upset at the results?

----------


## scotcher

For a long time the US was indeed thought of fondly by much of the world, for the things that it stood for, for it's actions in the world, for the character of it's people.  
People like Mike were the reason for that fondness, and it is a sad indication of how far the US has become removed from it's founding principles (and it's own self-image), that Mike and people like him are now being called UnAmerican. 
Mike: you are a credit to your country, and I am sure The Founding Fathers of the USA will take some comfort that there are still Americans like you on the planet, as they turn in their graves at what has become of  their country.

----------


## Rahul

Mike I think you are kidding yourself by saying the US is an expansionist and imperialist country. How many democratic countries has the US ever invaded and occupied? How many countries does the US claim as its land?  
Manifest Destiny was a policy that the government used over 200 years ago. It doesn't even exist now just as slavery has ceased to exist in the US.  
Over forty countries in the coalition iclude United States, UK, Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland. These are definitely much bigger and more prominent countries than Lithuania.  
And I will repeat what people mentioned earlier, that nobody has yet to say why there is reason to go against this war.  
Oh by the way, France, Germany and Russia is *not* a reason. They all have their own political interests in mind just like the US and are not doing this for "world peace" as they claim.

----------


## Rahul

> For a long time the US was indeed thought of fondly by much of the world, for the things that it stood for, for it's actions in the world, for the character of it's people.  
> People like Mike were the reason for that fondness, and it is a sad indication of how far the US has become removed from it's founding principles (and it's own self-image), that Mike and people like him are now being called UnAmerican. 
> Mike: you are a credit to your country, and I am sure The Founding Fathers of the USA will take some comfort that there are still Americans like you on the planet, as they turn in their graves at what has become of  their country.

 Oh please, stop with the drama. Mike would repulse the conservative founding fathers with his anarchist extreme left wing views. And I'm not making that up either.

----------


## scotcher

Rahul: 
Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.

----------


## z80

During the USAs occupation of cuba America was considered an expainionist state, so this is not the first time they have done this. 
All there actions at the moment seam to point to the fact that they are an expainionist state, and unfortunately being the only world super power, I fear that they will be a reigem that lasts quite awhile.  
Now that Australia (John Howard) has allied Australia with the US, I also fear that we will be "gobbled up" by the USA and simply be another state of the US. Elections are due here soon, and I have very little doubt that Mr Howard will not win, as the opposition party have a very strong anit war, pro UN stance. 
Also, In this argument, I would like to request that people refrain from personal attacks. People that have to resort to personal attacks are obviously grabing in the air because they don't have enough facts to support there view.

----------


## mike

> Oh please, stop with the drama. Mike would repulse the conservative founding fathers with his anarchist extreme left wing views. And I'm not making that up either.

 I really only came back because I realized I had made an error in another post, so I'll get to your other comments tomorrow.  I just wanted to say the founding fathers, while wealthy landowners, were definitely not conservative--neither for their time or ours.  They were not religious (most were deists or agnostics, excluding Washington who was always very silent on the subject), and their economic views were classical liberal (read:  relaxed social liberties but heavy emphasis on the importance of property rights).  They held a lot of the same beliefs as von Humboldt and Smith. 
However, I should mention that there is a lot of speculation that Thomas Jefferson would have sided with a more leftist view had such a thing existed in the late 17th/early 18th century.  For example, his autobiography explained his fear that corporations have too much power.  This obviously conflicts with the ideas of right-wing minarchism.

----------


## Rahul

> Rahul: 
> Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.

 What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building? 
Besides, I feel this is completely off topic. Since you guys can't come up with reasons to support all the things you said, I guess you're just resorting to cheap statements.

----------


## z80

> Rahul: 
> Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.

 I think we have found the problem here, some of us to put it politly have a "Different" way of thinking.

----------


## kostya

Here is the reason I believe in the war: RESOLUTION 687 (1991) gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4  

> 8.   Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
>  removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: 
>       (a)  All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
>  related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
>  manufacturing facilities; 
>       (b)  All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
>  related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

 Is there anyone who can say that Iraq has complied? It's been 12 years, and there is little evidence that the weapons have been destroyed.    

> Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?

 See above. 
Sure the US will gain better access to oil, but I see it childish to call that the sole reason. That alone will not pay for the resources used for this war (well, maybe after a decade or 2). 
World domination is definitely US's purpose though. We are the biggest baddest boys on the block, and will own all   :: . Please...  
I feel that UN is sitting back, and is denying support because they don't want anything to do with causing a war, when the line isn't clear, and the evidence isn't blinding. But anyone in the right mind can see that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, as well as means of producing them. And now tell me, how can a handfull of inspectors find these? Especially when they can be monitored, and their arrival can be easily prepared for.
Saddam is like that bully that will punch you in the back, and when you turn around will say it was someone else, then just to do it again later.  ::  
Kinda reminds me of the prelude to ww2, and especially Russia initial involvement ("oh but he promised he wouldn't hurt us")  
War is bad, but in this case someone needed to step up, and I'm proud to live in a country that will not tolerate being toyed with.

----------


## scotcher

> What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?

 Not at all, but such a thing has happened, and it happened as a result of resentment and hatred built up by many years of short-sighted American foreign policy. Americans who, like you, either deny the resentment and hatred exists, or are happy to live with it, are as responsible as the administration who implements it, because you legitimise their actions. This attack on Iraq, seen from the rest of the world, is just a further escaltion of that same foreign policy that saw the US become so vastly unpopular in the first place.  _O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us_ - Robert Burns, 1789

----------


## z80

thank you scotcher !

----------


## mike

> Here is the reason I believe in the war: RESOLUTION 687 (1991) gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4    
> 			
> 				      8.   Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
>  removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: 
>       (a)  All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
>  related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
>  manufacturing facilities; 
>       (b)  All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
>  related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
> ...

 Well, there's this: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html
And this:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2830505.stm
There's also the fact that Iraq has not used any of those weapons it has even though now is the best time for it, the al-Samoud II missiles that were destroyed, the unearthed remains of a site where chemical agents had been destroyed and dumped.  The fact that those chemical-dispersing long-range drones Powell talked about turned out to be made from balsa wood and duct tape.  How's that for starters?   

> [quote:23a9scz1]Saddam has weapon of mass destruction? And what is the problem? Russia do have it too, China do, England do. Why they do not offer to disarm Russia, China, England? How about USA?

 See above. 
Sure the US will gain better access to oil, but I see it childish to call that the sole reason. That alone will not pay for the resources used for this war (well, maybe after a decade or 2). 
World domination is definitely US's purpose though. We are the biggest baddest boys on the block, and will own all   :: . Please...  
I feel that UN is sitting back, and is denying support because they don't want anything to do with causing a war, when the line isn't clear, and the evidence isn't blinding. But anyone in the right mind can see that Saddam does have chemical and biological weapons, as well as means of producing them.[/quote:23a9scz1] 
I'm sure he has some old ones.  That's what the purpose of the inspections is--to get rid of them.  But where are these new ones he's creating supposedly?  Share some of your infinite wisdom with the weapons inspectors and the CIA.  Because they sure can't find them.  You and the other hawks must have psychic powers.   

> And now tell me, how can a handfull of inspectors find these? Especially when they can be monitored, and their arrival can be easily prepared for.

 With spyplanes, satellite imaging, and more conventional intelligence.  In fact, the Blix team already had this cooperation and the Russians had planned to contribute more spyplanes to the inspections last week until the outbreak of war occurred.  Guess what?  Even with all of this state of the art spying the US was still unable to find doodly squat.   

> Saddam is like that bully that will punch you in the back, and when you turn around will say it was someone else, then just to do it again later.  
> Kinda reminds me of the prelude to ww2, and especially Russia initial involvement ("oh but he promised he wouldn't hurt us")

 Uh, yeah.  Except Russia *had* to sign the non-aggression pact in the early years of the war.  It never would've stood a chance otherwise.  Stalin was an idiot and underestimated the Nazis.  But had he not signed an agreement with Hitler promising not to fight (all the while building up massive arms, mind you) the USSR would've easily fallen to the Germans.   

> War is bad, but in this case someone needed to step up, and I'm proud to live in a country that will not tolerate being toyed with.

 Yeah, our leaders are too busy playing with themselves to need toys.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by scotcher  Rahul: 
> Next time you wonder why people are willing to slam commercial airliners into US buildings in order to hurt your country, take a good, hard look in a mirror.   What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building? 
> Besides, I feel this is completely off topic. Since you guys can't come up with reasons to support all the things you said, I guess you're just resorting to cheap statements.

 And you haven't come up with even a single fact, Rahul.  That's what I love about you and redchupacabra.  You make this big argument out of a simple politics debate, then when I sit here and make 100 points you will focus on 1 or 2 of them, then call it a victory when I lock up the topic because you're stonewalling for a week.  Or somebody else makes 10 points and you ignore _all_ of them and continue whining about how they aren't giving you any facts.  The facts are right there, you just aren't responding to them. 
How's this for a cheap statement:  You *do* make me feel like ramming a jet into a building.

----------


## mike

> Mike I think you are kidding yourself by saying the US is an expansionist and imperialist country. How many democratic countries has the US ever invaded and occupied? How many countries does the US claim as its land?

 With US forces or just through financing foreign rebels?  By the way, the US probably learned from the French, Belgian, and English the valuable lesson of colonialism:  It's better to control a foreign country from afar, so that you don't suffer the financial burdens of management and putting down local rebellions.  Just as long as the leader doesn't start nationalizing your businesses or getting too liberal everything is hunky-dory.   

> Manifest Destiny was a policy that the government used over 200 years ago. It doesn't even exist now just as slavery has ceased to exist in the US.

 Over 200 years ago?  Do they teach basic mathematics where you live?
Because to me, the 1840s was not "over 200 years ago."  Or maybe you are posting messages from the future, and that is why you know all these things about Iraq that no one else does.   

> Over forty countries in the coalition iclude United States, UK, Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland. These are definitely much bigger and more prominent countries than Lithuania.

 Why did you include the United States in the list?  By the way, how many countries aren't on the coalition of the wiling?  120?  130?   

> And I will repeat what people mentioned earlier, that nobody has yet to say why there is reason to go against this war.

 There are plenty of reasons on this board.  Maybe if you honestly wanted to debate you'd bother to read the posts.  But I think you fear actually having to acknowledge that you've seen them, otherwise it will become obvious you can't reply.   

> Oh by the way, France, Germany and Russia is *not* a reason. They all have their own political interests in mind just like the US and are not doing this for "world peace" as they claim.

 So then I guess you're conceding that the US is not doing it for world peace?

----------


## V

> By the way, V, why did you remove the poll from this topic?  Were you upset at the results?

 Nope, I didn't remove it.

----------


## mike

Weird.  I wonder if Admin took it down.  I can't see why it would violate any rules.  Maybe it's just a bug.

----------


## V

Yeah maybe there's a bug, because I edited it for a spelling mistake.

----------


## V

There it is again, I got it to work, but there are now two yes options and two no options.  ::  Not my fault!

----------


## mike

Then we'll just use simple math to find the results.  This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.

----------


## Rahul

> Originally Posted by Rahul  
> What is that supposed to mean? Am I making you feel like ramming a jet into a building?   Not at all, but such a thing has happened, and it happened as a result of resentment and hatred built up by many years of short-sighted American foreign policy. Americans who, like you, either deny the resentment and hatred exists, or are happy to live with it, are as responsible as the administration who implements it, because you legitimise their actions. This attack on Iraq, seen from the rest of the world, is just a further escaltion of that same foreign policy that saw the US become so vastly unpopular in the first place.

 Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen.  ::   Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them. Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.

----------


## Rahul

> Then we'll just use simple math to find the results.  This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.

 Yah real funny.  ::   The US started all expansionist movements into the Americas around 1800. Thats why I said around 200 years ago.

----------


## Rahul

> I'm sure he has some old ones.  That's what the purpose of the inspections is--to get rid of them.  But where are these new ones he's creating supposedly?  Share some of your infinite wisdom with the weapons inspectors and the CIA.  Because they sure can't find them.  You and the other hawks must have psychic powers.

 Do you think you can find a dozen missiles hidden in a country the size of Texas? They could be hidden in schools, homes, even somewhere away in the desert. Even spy drones have their limits. They cant look through trucks and neither can satellites. Their arrival can be predicted.The weapons inspectors were wasting their time. Oh wait, I forgot, Hans Blix has X-ray vision and Saddam won the Nobel Peace Prize  ::  . Back in 1998, there was a huge scare from Iraq that they would use biological and/or chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel. This also violated the clause describing the 100 km limit in the treaty Hussein signed back at the end of the Gulf War. 
Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?

----------


## MasterAdmin

> Weird.  I wonder if Admin took it down.  I can't see why it would violate any rules.  Maybe it's just a bug.

 It's a bug.

----------


## mike

> Do you think you can find a dozen missiles hidden in a country the size of Texas? They could be hidden in schools, homes, even somewhere away in the desert. Even spy drones have their limits. They cant look through trucks and neither can satellites. Their arrival can be predicted.The weapons inspectors were wasting their time. Oh wait, I forgot, Hans Blix has X-ray vision and Saddam won the Nobel Peace Prize  . Back in 1998, there was a huge scare from Iraq that they would use biological and/or chemical weapons on Kuwait. Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel. This also violated the clause describing the 100 km limit in the treaty Hussein signed back at the end of the Gulf War.

 OK, but there aren't a dozen missiles.  There are several thousands of pounds of chemical agents and a hundred missiles.  We found the missiles and had destroyed about 50 of them before Bush called out the war everyone expected would happen 4 months ago.  The UN was also in the process of testing the pits in which the chemical agents were allegedly destroyed to determine how much of them had actually been disposed of.  Again, until Bush decided the diplomacy we all know he didn't care about to begin with "wasn't working."   

> Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country. And if there is such "censorship" in the media, how come the Monica Lewinsky scandal ever got out?

 Yes, that is a very rational and well-proven argument.  I suggest you read news from other countries and then ask yourself why the same stories aren't breaking the front pages in the US. 
The Monica Lewinsky scandal "got out" because the GOP was so set on discrediting Clinton and getting him out of office that they spent years looking for any excuse to ruin him--and finally settled on successfully impeaching him for a crime that probably every politician in history is guilty of.  One of the conservative journalists they hired, David Brock, wrote a book about it called Blinded by the Right:  The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative.  It also discusses the stress that was put on him during the Clarence Thomas (the conservative supreme court judge from the early 90s who sexually harassed one of his employees) hearings to discredit the lead witness against him as a slut.  He wrote a book on her, in which he admits he made up or altered hundreds of facts to destroy her credibility, and the Republican Party succeeded in getting Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court.  Despite their moral self-righteousness, the conservatives that fill mainstream American media seem to be willing to resort to the lowest common denominator in their crusade against people who resort to the lowest common denominator.  I guess it takes unethical sleaze to fight unethical sleaze.  Take a look at Rupert Murdoch's New York Post sometime if you don't believe me.  Personally I think conservatives must be so sexually and socially repressed that it turns into deviance elsewhere.  But, like most of your beliefs, I can't really back that up with any scientific proof and it is more of an opinion so I withdraw it.

----------


## mike

> Originally Posted by mike  Then we'll just use simple math to find the results.  This should be easy for everyone but Rahul, who thinks it is the year 2050.   Yah real funny.   The US started all expansionist movements into the Americas around 1800. Thats why I said around 200 years ago.

 It's one thing to say expansionism started around 1800, and it's quite another to imply it ended "over 200 years ago."  After all, how can something end before it's started?  Or are you saying it only lasted for 3 years?  If so, how do you explain Texas, turn-of-the-century Cuba, and the Phillipines?  What about the slicing up of China we did?  Hawaii and Alaska?  Puerto Rico?  Guam?  The Virgin Islands?

----------


## mike

> Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen.   Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them.

 Yes, and who allows those countries to exist?  Who made the Saud family billionaires with their dependence on oil, instead of focusing on alternative energy sources?  The blood of every woman that is stoned to death, every drug dealer publicly decapitated, and every thief whose arm is cut off is on the hands of us all, because we drive automobiles and finance their brutality.  If you're so intent on bringing democracy to countries like Iraq and ending terrorism, I have a suggestion:  buy a bicycle and carpool to work.   

> Their entire lives live around a misinterpreted conception of a religion that is so perverse, they believe killing innocent civilians will make them go to heaven or paradise. They do not use reason and logic. I believe that Bin Laden and any other member of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have no clue of what Islam really is meant to represent.

 al-Qaeda is not really about getting to heaven.  That's bullshit.  They are fighting because they see the Saudis as immoral hypocrites who let the US occupy their holy land.  It is the symbolic equivalent of the Nazis building a headquarters in downtown Jerusalem.  I don't condone violence, and I think religion and caring about territories and holy lands is idiotic (or as George Carlin puts it, "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded"), but 9/11 was not about a bunch of guys thinking if they kill themselves for Allah they will get into Heaven and live with 72 virgins.  It was about the US being in Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the blatant Israeli aggression against Palestine that only now are we bothering to acknowledge exists.

----------


## mike

Hey Rahul, check out this picture of your brave heroes fighting for freedom and peace:  http://66.206.162.110/photos/surrender.jpg (btw, I do not recommend any children or easily upset people look at this as most of the Iraqi soldiers' heads have been torn off by gunfire). 
Why...that gun the one guy is holding looks an awful lot like a big white flag, doesn't it?  Actually, I can't see either of them holding guns.  Hmm, I wonder where they are hiding them!

----------


## redchupacabra

[quote=mike]  

> I've never choked on food to the point where I black out for 20 minutes and injured my eye.  He must've been really eager to swallow those Rold Golds.

 Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.   

> [quote:180b6seh]
> 1.  Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States.  Those numbers ain't low.
> 2.  Ask a Cherokee about this one.
> 3.  Ever hear of Manifest Destiny?  How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?"  By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack.  There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.

 I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was *THE* motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible. Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell. 
[Quote=mike] 

> Uh, no.  The inspectors were given free access to go anywhere they wanted, and the intelligence communities of the United States (among others) gave plenty of information to the inspectors about suspected sites.  Know what happened?  None of them turned out to be producing anything.

 My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.    

> This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war.  Hitler made it perfectly clear in Mein Kampf that he wanted to reclaim all of the areas stolen from him in World War 1.
> 			
> 		  Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Perhaps you missed a chapter or two or maybe half the book to miss the part about world domination, ethnic clensing, and his arian race.         Originally Posted by mike  [quote:180b6seh]
> Where is any microscopic strand of evidence Saddam Hussein is planning to conquer the world with these alleged weapons?...   Since I didn't even make this comment that he was trying to take over the world then the rest of your paragraph is nullified. But who cares? So you want to see a statement where saddam gets up infront of the whole world and says, "you know? I think I would like to take over the world." Besides what do you think he would do with them keep the peace? Maybe he doesn't want to world, maybe he does. And if he does want it why would he declare it? Maybe he would take it say, one step at a time like kuwait.         Originally Posted by mike  [quote:180b6seh]
> I would say there's nothing logical about religion in general, but that's just me.   Well, mike, thats what I would consider a dissenting opinion; then basically you are in dissagreement with over 80% of the rest of the world. You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith? 
> Besides, I see it this way. If there is no such thing as right or wrong then who cares about who suffers and wars period. Please if you have something nasty to say don't comment because I dont want this to go into a "why you should be converted" conversation. 
> [quote:180b6seh]People declared holy wars less than a thousand years ago.  Take a look at the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or the conquest of Africa, South and North America.

 yes, thats a point I was trying to make. Thanks.     

> The problem is, Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons.

 I doubt it as well but be certian of nothing in the type of world we live in today.   

> He has chemical weapons that he can only launch at most 100km.  If a terrorist plans to use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies it isn't going to be in a conventional bomb coming from someone as obvious as Iraq.  It's going to be on a suitcase in a bus in downtown Manhattan.  But we don't care about stopping those kinds of things.  They aren't profitable.
> 			
> 		  I supose your right. America could have cared less about September 11th.        Originally Posted by mike  And you haven't come up with even a single fact, Rahul.  That's what I love about you and redchupacabra.  You make this big argument out of a simple politics debate, then when I sit here and make 100 points you will focus on 1 or 2 of them, then call it a victory when I lock up the topic because you're stonewalling for a week.  Or somebody else makes 10 points and you ignore _all_ of them and continue whining about how they aren't giving you any facts.  The facts are right there, you just aren't responding to them.

 [/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh][/quote:180b6seh] 
I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess. I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right. I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves? Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either. 
I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me. I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either. 
Your friend,  
Red Chupacabra

----------


## redchupacabra

excuse my spelling errors. I typed this in haste I will return to check the message board at a latter date.  cya

----------


## mike

> Mike you later criticized my comment about the comparison of a similar situation about Germany in WWII commenting that "This is the most retarded argument made by people who support the war." How does this comment concerning Bush even shake a stick to my comment? Please fill free to respond with more foolishness thats the majority I have heard conecerning quite a few posts.

 Well, the simple truth is my comment was a joke (which was obvious to I think every single person who read the post) and yours was serious.  Both lacked any substance, but mine wasn't meant to.   

> I was referencing to Ethnic clensing. I disagree that was *THE* motive. And I as well think that you can still see this, left over from the hundreds of years ago that this happend. We wanted their lands and their resources as quick and easy as possible.

 Well, then I suggest you come up to New England some time.  You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth.  Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?   

> Sometimes they thought shooting them was the best way other times...putting them in a reservation. THE ATTROCITIES! People cared not for their individual lives at all!!! WHAT IS THE MANIFST DESTINY!!!! Its about pure greed mike. It never was about God but Gold. If their main goal was an ethnic clensing you would not see native american indian reservatinos today. That was a hearding of what they considered a problem to their goal or a pot hole on the road to hell.

 If the savages acted civil and accepted the gospels we paraded them around as proof to the rest.  If they were too obstinate we just got rid of them.  Unfortunately, the former group was never truly accepted by either society.  I used to have an interesting book from college that was a compilation of writings by people from the "civilized tribes," but I sold it back to the bookstore years ago.   

> My comment: i think you have been watching too much CNN.

 Mine:  I don't watch CNN, at least not for Iraq coverage.  It is the official mouthpiece of the Pentagon.   

> Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Perhaps you missed a chapter or two or maybe half the book to miss the part about world domination, ethnic clensing, and his arian race.

 Probably not as enthusiastically as you,   ::  but yes, I have.  And that was my point exactly.  Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top.  What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world?  Or his attempts at trying?   

> Since I didn't even make this comment that he was trying to take over the world then the rest of your paragraph is nullified. But who cares?

 No, but you made the allusion to Hitler.  All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago.  That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.   

> So you want to see a statement where saddam gets up infront of the whole world and says, "you know? I think I would like to take over the world." Besides what do you think he would do with them keep the peace? Maybe he doesn't want to world, maybe he does. And if he does want it why would he declare it? Maybe he would take it say, one step at a time like kuwait.

 Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies.  In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil.  A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.   

> Well, mike, thats what I would consider a dissenting opinion; then basically you are in dissagreement with over 80% of the rest of the world.

 So is Bush.  What's your point?   

> You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?

 I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into.  Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith.  This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation).  Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence.  Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence.  You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence.  However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion. 
By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.  It lacks a lot of basis scientifically, most pointedly because all of these "complexities" can be explained perfectly well by biology and evolution.  Simple microorganisms, for example, have been created under laboratory conditions from basic elements and a reproduction of lightning in a controlled environment.  I really don't know why Christians oppose evolution so virulently for two reasons:  1)  Evolution and Darwinism (like Kropotkin, while Darwin is considered very important to evolutionary theory, some of his views are actually discredited by more recent biological observation) are not synonymous, and unless you are one of the few people who still believe the world is only 6,000 years old despite the overwhelming evidence--I should also point out that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest the earth is this young, it was just the number calculated by a clergyman and added to the original King James Bible--there is no reason to oppose evolutionary theory; and 2)  Darwin was not an atheist, and believed that the origin of life came from the "breath of the Creator." 
It is not an argument taken very seriously these days, and creation scientists have mostly abandoned it for the more popular (yet similar to the AFD) "Irreducible Complexity" argument put forth by Michael Behe.  I won't get it into that because you didn't bring it up, but if you do then don't bother using the "flagellum of bacteria" example, as it has recently been proven that several of the separate parts of the flagellum do in fact act independently. 
I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists.  It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.   

> I supose your right. America could have cared less about September 11th.

 No, I'm saying the American government will gladly fight a war on terrorism in a country our intelligence agency denies has any links to terrorism if it can put some coin in its pocket in the process, but its only real solution to cracking down on domestic terror threats is to establish useless token organizations like Homeland Security and pass amendments that reduce civil liberties and make it legal for the FBI to--among other things--request a list of all the books and websites you've visited or checked out at the library upon threat of termination to anyone who refuses (by the way, aren't the Republicans the party that hates big government?)  This latter example reeks of irony after those annoying commercials last year with the kid coming up to the librarian and asking for a book, then getting escorted out by men in black suits with the scare-tactic ending, "FREEDOM.  CHERISH IT.  PROTECT IT."  I guess the end where it says, "BY HAVING YOUR CONGRESSMAN ENACT LAWS LIKE THIS ONE" got cut out for time constraints.   

> I am sorry I am working right now very hard to save money for college. I work and do homework constantly while I try not to neglect my other hobies. Infact mike I don't ignore what you say at all. I reply. I know the facts which you use to aid your conversation. And I know some things about histroy as well. I am more interested in truth I guess.  I want to find out what the truth is not constantly battling other people because I want to be proven right.

 All of the things I've said are true.  "Constantly battling other people" is called debate, and it leads to productive results.   

> I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves?

 What exactly are you basing that accusation on?  Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.   

> Mike i have been wrong about many things before. And you know what I will tell everyone right now that guess what? I don't have all the answers. And I dont claim to either.

 Yes, that is one of the values of open-ended discussions like this one.  To arrive at answers from opposite sides of the question.   

> I have signed all my posts as your friend because I want to you to remember that incase you ever become angry at me.

 I don't really believe you can be friends with someone you've never met, but to each their own.  And no, I do not get mad.  Even when I told Rahul he made me want to crash a jet into a building I think it was clear I was being playful.   

> I enjoy this message board and if I didn't I wouldnt be here. I am here so we can build each other and give positive comments as well to each one. My positive comment to you is its quite clear your very bright. The only thing I would say is that when you quote history and things you should look at history and try to apply it to your life instead of using your life and justifying it by history. I know thats is sort of vague but I am not real good at expressing myself publicaly either.

 Yes, it is vague.  I really have no idea what it meant.

----------


## mike

By the way, in regards to those prisoners Iraq took Bush better hope they are freed soon or else this is going to stop being Gulf War II, and turn into Jimmy Carter's Presidency:  The Sequel.   http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828 http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=3828

----------


## redchupacabra

I am sure the troops taken will not be released until some time after the war is over. I don't think they want to re-fight the same guys.  
Here are some facts 
1. Centom: Iraqi troops fake surrender to kill U.S. Troops. 
2. France sells nuclear reactor parts to Iraq - VERY OLD NEWS 
3. Night vision from Russian firms sold to yemen + Syria which in turn were sold to Iraq. 
4. France sells Iraq spare fighter plane parts - OLD NEWS 
5. Jamming Equipment found in humanitarian aid from Russia (from a firm) to Iraq. 
What do you think about these facts guys? 
Which of 2-5 do you think you can you place actual blame on the country if any?

----------


## mike

While any deaths resulting from #1 are a tragedy, you have to hand it to the Iraqis for having one hell of a clever ambush.  I don't believe 2-5 are the responsibility of the countries.  The only country's government I can think of who blatantly violated the UN sanctions was Ukraine, for the sale of the Kolchuga radar.  But then, Ukraine's president is a despicable piece of corrupt shit.

----------


## V

> I am sure the troops taken will not be released until some time after the war is over. I don't think they want to re-fight the same guys.

 Some have been shown on al-Jazira with bullet holes in their foreheads  ::

----------


## mike

Yes, they also interrogated POWs and displayed pictures of it.  Hopefully they will be prosecuted for violating the Geneva Convention agreements when the war is over.  On the same token, I hope our intentional targetting of heads of state (Saddam and his sons) and detainment of members of the Taleban are also investigated, as both violate the Geneva Convention as well.  They probably won't since we are basically immune from any international scrutiny, but one can hope.

----------


## redchupacabra

> Both lacked any substance, but mine wasn't meant to.
> 			
> 		  Perhaps a bitter comment coming from a bitter person?           Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]Well, then I suggest you come up to New England some time.   I'd love too actually. Can I stay at your house?   Actually, unfotunatly have not been able to travel to New England but I have been to Russia lol.        Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth.  Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?   There were people that had dedicated their lives to killing native americans because of their own personal hate but if you remember the origional conversation was talking about Ethnic Clensing of nations. The puritains were some pretty bad peolple indeed. But once again I think killing them was only one method used for the whities getting what they wanted. According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona. 
> (referring to Mein Kompf)       Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]Probably not as enthusiastically as you,  but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?   You've stumped me on this one. I simply don't know. Maybe if Hitler wasn't in jail then the book would not have been written. (Obviously in that cozy cell he had some extra free time on his hands.) Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN   and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.        Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]No, but you made the allusion to Hitler.  All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago.  That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.   I wasn't refering to the appeasment. Since I don't want to type it again just go back and read the part about Germany crossing the rule about how much military power it should have and blah blah. 
> [quote:1hgja7gw]Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies.

 Not really, remember my comment about the insane?   

> In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil.  A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.

 I hope you didn't interview saddam for that information or maybe you read abujale hamanika hamanika vanje alajo. Saddam's new book printed yesterday, title translated (My really really big plan.)   

> You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?

  

> I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into.  Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith.  This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation).  Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence.  Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence.  You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence.  However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.
> 			
> 		  Thanks that was just a long drawn out paragraph revealing that you still dont really know what faith is but thats okay. I A. don't want to start talking about religion with you. B. Don't really care at this point in time.        Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.   Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.         Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists.  It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.   safe bet according to who?    
> Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes (love that quote lol) but actually I don't think there are athiests. Everyone knows theirs a God. Some have just tried to run from it.        Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]What exactly are you basing that accusation on?  Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.   Actually I have not been able to read all the topics in this discussion and I don't know Rahul but if he is making you mad he is probably on to something           Originally Posted by mike  [quote:1hgja7gw]I don't really believe you can be friends with someone you've never met, but to each their own.

 [/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw][/quote:1hgja7gw]
Ouch drive the stake in baby.

----------


## Rahul

Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched. As for annoying him, I'm not sure. If I think about it, we see eye to eye on most issues however he has hated me for my views on this Iraq situation. He just can't take being beaten by solid evidence.   

> What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

 Nobody was trying to intimidate you or you're masculinity so there's no need to get so defensive about it.  ::

----------


## redchupacabra

Mike's attributes on most discussions seem to be quite liberal to me. 
Dynamic Duo. lol I like that

----------


## Rahul

> Originally Posted by Rahul  Yah we all know how much freedom and liberty exist in countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen.   Those people became terrorists because of the lack of education they receive and the huge amount of propaganda that people who call themselves "servants of God" give them.   Yes, and who allows those countries to exist?  Who made the Saud family billionaires with their dependence on oil, instead of focusing on alternative energy sources?  The blood of every woman that is stoned to death, every drug dealer publicly decapitated, and every thief whose arm is cut off is on the hands of us all, because we drive automobiles and finance their brutality.  If you're so intent on bringing democracy to countries like Iraq and ending terrorism, I have a suggestion:  buy a bicycle and carpool to work.

 Well, I also agree that it is time we started looking for alternate sources of energy seriously because we will pay the price in about 60 to 70 years if we don't. I know that in Iceland, they are close to becoming completely independant of fossil fuels however, not every country in the world has geothermal springs and a small population that can quickly adapt to changes. And I'm not very happy about the kind of governments you get in the Middle East either. Their treatment of women and ither social problems is horrible but those societies were like that even before oil was discovered there, not that oil hasn't played its part.

----------


## z80

I think mike backs his statments up with facts.  
Backing your satments up with feelings and reteric from g.bush is not fact.

----------


## scotcher

_Liberal
lib·er·al    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.  
1)
a)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 
b)Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 
c)Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. 
d)Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.  
2)
a)Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. 
b)Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes._  
How come so many Americans use the word "liberal" as an insult?

----------


## mike

> Perhaps a bitter comment coming from a bitter person?

 Sometimes the truth is bitter, yes.   

> [quote:1h37e3ho]You see, our Puritan settlers didn't take kindly to the Indians and successfully wiped out several tribes from the face of the earth.  Sure, you can say it was about land, but if that were the only case why did they make sure every last one of them was dead?

 There were people that had dedicated their lives to killing native americans because of their own personal hate but if you remember the origional conversation was talking about Ethnic Clensing of nations.[/quote:1h37e3ho] 
Yes, how many indians are left now?  Fifty thousand?  One hundred thousand?  So you don't consider it the ethnic cleansing of a nation if a few thousand are left on reservations?  Sort of like the Kurdish refugee camps?  Or is that different?  I don't think it is.   

> The puritains were some pretty bad peolple indeed. But once again I think killing them was only one method used for the whities getting what they wanted.

 Well, the Puritans did not necessarily take over the Indian lands they purged.  That is why I have a hard time believing it was about land conquest.  It was more about irrational hatred and xenophobia--as all racism and religious intolerance boils down to.   

> According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona.

 Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony.  But how many of those indians were there 200 years ago compared to today?  The numbers are exponentially different.   

> (referring to Mein Kompf)
> [quote:1h37e3ho]Probably not as enthusiastically as you,  but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?

 You've stumped me on this one. I simply don't know. Maybe if Hitler wasn't in jail then the book would not have been written. (Obviously in that cozy cell he had some extra free time on his hands.) Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN   ::  and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.[/quote:1h37e3ho] 
I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.   

> [quote:1h37e3ho]No, but you made the allusion to Hitler.  All I'm asking is besides the letter H and the ethnic cleansing, how is European appeasement anything at all the same in this situation as it was 60 years ago.  That is the question I'm still waiting for you to answer.

 I wasn't refering to the appeasment. Since I don't want to type it again just go back and read the part about Germany crossing the rule about how much military power it should have and blah blah.[/quote:1h37e3ho] 
Yes, ok, but are you sincerely comparing Saddam's military power to Hitler's?  Hitler had state of the art battleships, submarines, state of the art aircraft, bombs and guns, tanks, and a huge standing army that was very loyal to him.  Saddam Hussein's weapons consist of things from 20 years ago.  The reason we're upset about his illegal purchases from Russia and France is not that he is amassing some huge force with sophisticated technology, it's that he's buying night-vision goggles and $10 radio jamming devices that will send our million-dollar bombs going the wrong way.   

> [quote:1h37e3ho]Still, for your analogy to work one would have to believe that Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed Kuwait belonged to Iraq and was taken away from him by his enemies.

 Not really, remember my comment about the insane?[/quote:1h37e3ho] 
No.   

> In reality, Saddam accused Kuwait of slant-drilling into Iraqi territory and stealing their oil.  A claim that has some merit to it in retrospect.

 I don't know how an accusation is "information," but no, the information was the justification for the invasion.  I never said it was true, I said that was the reason he gave for invading.   

> [quote:1h37e3ho]You tell me which is more logical... That nothing created something and through billions of chances came out with the complexities of us v.s. animals and any other comparison or we just always have been. or that a God created us. Which do you consider to be a bigger leap of faith?

  

> I consider a book full of contradictions and historical inaccuracies that is no more scientifically provable than all the other religious tomes in existance not something I put a whole lot of stock into.  Also, I am not an atheist but an agnostic, however you are incorrect to say atheism is a leap of faith.  This is a logical fallacy that redefines the word faith halfway through the argument (called equivocation).  Faith in the scope of Christianity is a belief based entirely without scientific evidence.  Faith in atheists is nothing more than deduction based on this same lack of evidence.  You can say there is a Mountain Dew can floating around Mercury and I can deny it from a lack of evidence.  However, the burden of proof is upon you, not me, as you are the one making the assertion.

 Thanks that was just a long drawn out paragraph revealing that you still dont really know what faith is but thats okay. I A. don't want to start talking about religion with you. B. Don't really care at this point in time.[/quote:1h37e3ho] 
Actually, I do know what the word faith means, which is why I explained that religious apologists have a way of redefining the word shadily for their own convenience. 
faith    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fth)
n. 
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 
A set of principles or beliefs.[/quote]  
Since you used the words "leap of faith" you cannot be talking about something that can be proved.  Actually, let's just look up the definition of leap of faith--I use dictionary.com for all of these by the way, but if you have a better dictionary we can possibly use that--:  "leap of faith
The act or an instance of believing or trusting in something intangible or incapable of being proved."  If we assume this is what you meant, and I think it is, then faith is defined as believing in something that cannot be proven.  I happen to prefer Mark Twain's definition that "faith is believing something you know ain't true," but the former will suffice.   

> [quote:1h37e3ho]By the way, your argument is one called the AFD, or Argument From Design.

 Great I will go tell my doctor I have AFD syndrome.[/quote:1h37e3ho]    

> [quote:1h37e3ho]I don't believe in a God, but I do not deny one (or two, or five) exists.  It is just more of a safe bet considering the total lack of evidence or divine presence.

 safe bet according to who?   ::  [/quote:1h37e3ho] 
According to about 10% of the US population.   

> Personaly, I don't believe there are athiests in fox holes

 That's probably because rational people don't start wars.  They definitely don't consider six inches of enemy territory worth dying over.  One of the reasons religion continues to succeed is because it is nothing more than a great placebo for misery and despair.  When people are in a lot of pain they will believe in stupid nonsense that otherwise would seem ridiculous to them.   

> (love that quote lol) but actually I don't think there are athiests. Everyone knows theirs a God. Some have just tried to run from it.

 Er...right.  Well, I have no idea why you would think something like that, especially considering you claimed to be interested in "the truth," but all right.   

> What exactly are you basing that accusation on?  Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.
> 			
> 		  Actually I have not been able to read all the topics in this discussion and I don't know Rahul but if he is making you mad he is probably on to something

 I don't know about _to_, but he's definitely _on something_.

----------


## mike

> Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched. As for annoying him, I'm not sure. If I think about it, we see eye to eye on most issues however he has hated me for my views on this Iraq situation. He just can't take being beaten by solid evidence.

 I'm still waiting for this evidence to even appear.  *That's* what I'm annoyed with.  I've argued every rhetorical point you made and you just completely refuse to admit they're even there.  I've replied to every single thing you've said and you just lure yourself back into fantasy land.   

> What exactly are you basing that accusation on? Trust me, I'm not intimidated by the Dynamic Duo of you and Rahul.

 I quote, "I have posted many things latly because I want people to see both sides. Are you worried they will come to a conclusion themselves?"

----------


## mike

> Well, I also agree that it is time we started looking for alternate sources of energy seriously because we will pay the price in about 60 to 70 years if we don't. I know that in Iceland, they are close to becoming completely independant of fossil fuels however, not every country in the world has geothermal springs and a small population that can quickly adapt to changes. And I'm not very happy about the kind of governments you get in the Middle East either. Their treatment of women and ither social problems is horrible but those societies were like that even before oil was discovered there, not that oil hasn't played its part.

 Finally, a serious response, and one that has some good points.  However, I disagree on several parts of it: 
The reason we are dependent on oil and will be for years can be broken into two pieces.  First, the companies around the world that drill and refine petroleum understand the law of supply and demand.  Demand is not going to decline as oil runs out, it is going to skyrocket through the roof.  The crisis of the 1970s showed that they cannot be trusted by themselves to adopt new environmental policies, and will just whine and complain through any modern attempt at reducing public dependence on oil.  You also have car manufacturers who, in this time when gasoline needs are multiplying drastically while the rate of discovery levels off, are not producing cars that are more fuel efficient or use alternative sources (except perhaps those hybrid cars that are overpriced and lack commercial appeal), but are producing SUVs that get 10 miles to the gallon. 
Second, the initiatives taken by the government, such as the one forcing car companies to make cars more fuel efficient by something like 2008, are being met with fierce resistance from the auto industry and will probably make several concessions with.  The proposed hydrogen research Bush set forth in his state of the union address not only has no immediate value to it (it is not expecting hydrogen cars to be on the roads until 2012), but MIT recently put out a report warning that even if it succeeds it will not reduce the amount of gas consumption by any great amount.  Say there are a million hydrogen cars on the roads in 2012.  There are still 200 million conventional automobiles driving around, whose gas needs are simply not going to disappear.  If the government and oil interests were serious about reducing consumer dependence, they would instead focus on building more mass transit systems and either hybrid cars, or ones that solely use some other source (such as those neat-looking, French, compressed air-powered cars that went on the market a few months ago. 
And yes, the treatment of humans in the Middle East are bad, but there has been a lot of progress.  The Iranians are especially interesting (for example, they recently banned stoning women to death for adultery in one of the few examples of an Islamic government agreeing that the Koran does not always have to be taken literally; they also have females in parliament, and the largest Jewish population of any Arab country--though they also refuse to recognize Israel as a state), and I think if the reform government there can wrest more power away from the religious extremism that deposed the Shah, you will see a much more tolerant society burgeon.  Iraq, when it enjoyed US favor at least, had one of the most liberal societies in the Middle East.  It also had a well-established middle class and secular government.

----------


## mike

> _Liberal
> lib·er·al    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (lbr-l, lbrl)
> adj.  
> 1)
> a)Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 
> b)Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 
> c)Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. 
> d)Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.  
> 2)
> ...

 It is an outdated term from the political campaigns of the 1960s, where one side would call the other "liberal" or "conservative" and people actually got offended.  I honestly don't know why anyone still uses terms like that, especially since political beliefs are not confined to a left-right axis.  I am openly socialist, but that doesn't mean I have extremely liberal social views.  The idea that if you are liberal you have to fit all of the stereotypes of a bleeding heart hippie, or that if you are conservative you have to buy a semiautomatic weapon and support the death penalty, is very outdated and counterproductive to any real social change. 
There's a site called http://www.politicalcompass.org that I think is very interesting.  I take it every six months or so just to see how my opinions change.  I'm usually in the range of -6.9,-6.8 and -8,-8.

----------


## Rahul

> Originally Posted by Rahul  Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched. As for annoying him, I'm not sure. If I think about it, we see eye to eye on most issues however he has hated me for my views on this Iraq situation. He just can't take being beaten by solid evidence.   I'm still waiting for this evidence to even appear.  *That's* what I'm annoyed with.  I've argued every rhetorical point you made and you just completely refuse to admit they're even there.  I've replied to every single thing you've said and you just lure yourself back into fantasy land.

 What? Look back and tell me what you find as rhetoric.

----------


## redchupacabra

> Yes, how many indians are left now?  Fifty thousand?  One hundred thousand?  So you don't consider it the ethnic cleansing of a nation if a few thousand are left on reservations?  Sort of like the Kurdish refugee camps?  Or is that different?  I don't think it is.

 Your right the end result is the same but I was commenting about the motivation. See you throw tons of crap trying to make me look in the wrong by changing the conversation once again I stress go back and read what I type.    

> Well, the Puritans did not necessarily take over the Indian lands they purged.  That is why I have a hard time believing it was about land conquest.  It was more about irrational hatred and xenophobia--as all racism and religious intolerance boils down to.

   ::  Perhaps you should take your own advice and go read the manifest destiny. Besides I think you can find hundreds and maybe thousands of diary's that would suggest you are wrong. Where do you think modern day United States is anyway?   

> According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona.

  

> Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony.

   ::  I was just refering that i have been on a trip there. So starting after the word, "and" i dont understand why you made that comment.   

> (referring to Mein Kompf)
> Probably not as enthusiastically as you,  but yes, I have. And that was my point exactly. Hitler fully planned on dominating the world and bringing the Aryan race to its rightful place on top. What I am asking is, if this situation is so similar to that one, where is Saddam's claims that the Iraqi people should be ruling the world? Or his attempts at trying?

  

> You've stumped me on this one. I simply don't know. Maybe if Hitler wasn't in jail then the book would not have been written. (Obviously in that cozy cell he had some extra free time on his hands.) Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN   and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.

  

> I'm sorry, I don't mean to insult you but I can't understand what that last sentence even means.

 
Substitute He=with saddam 
It's hard to believe you missed this since I was talking about Saddam. If personal pronouns confuse you I wont use them.    

> The reason we're upset about his illegal purchases from Russia and France is not that he is amassing some huge force with sophisticated technology, it's that he's buying night-vision goggles and $10 radio jamming devices that will send our million-dollar bombs going the wrong way.

 So, im having trouble adding up 1 + 1 on you. Are you against war completley? That there would never be a situtuation that you would not go to war for?

----------


## redchupacabra

P.S.
Unfortunately I have to go to work again...Promise I am not "stonewalling" I will reply after I get home from mandatory education Tuesday.  ::  Education is what really needs reform, and I have first hand witness to the system as well.

----------


## mike

> What? Look back and tell me what you find as rhetoric.

 An Assorted Collection of Rahul's Pearls of Wisdom: 
"Saddam Hussain has literally killed millions of people, used weapons of mass destruction, caused irreparable environmental damage and broken several UN treaties. I think it is time he is either killed or brought to justice." 
"Saddam Hussein loves weapons. That's why he was developing a huge cannon to shoot massive shells onto Israel." 
"Oh and by the way, websites like fair.org or whatever its called, are usually founded by people who have some personal vendetta against a country." 
"Well, Mike feels he is the saviour who shall rid the world of evil. Some of his arguments have some reason behind them but others are a little far-fetched."   

> mike wrote: 
> Yes, how many indians are left now? Fifty thousand? One hundred thousand? So you don't consider it the ethnic cleansing of a nation if a few thousand are left on reservations? Sort of like the Kurdish refugee camps? Or is that different? I don't think it is.  
> Your right the end result is the same but I was commenting about the motivation.

 So was I, actually.  You seem to be in denial that Christians have considered brown heathens to be below them since their religion began.   

> See you throw tons of cr@p trying to make me look in the wrong by changing the conversation once again I stress go back and read what I type.

 All right, let's look at your first comment.   

> Thats right. We enjoy beating women, ethnic clensing, and starting holy wars.

 My reply was:   

> 1. Check out the domestic abuse statistics for the United States. Those numbers ain't low. 
> 2. Ask a Cherokee about this one. 
> 3. Ever hear of Manifest Destiny? How about the fact that when we first started the war on terrorism Bush called it a "crusade?" By the way, you're oversimplifying to say religion is the only reason terrorists attack. There are plenty of political reasons for it as well.

 I haven't changed the subject at all.  I'm giving you a clear example of American ethnic cleansing.  The problem is, you seem to be claiming our killing the Indians was not based on religious beliefs at all, but on greed.  However, historically we have had a much, much easier time killing non-Christians than fellow Jesus worshippers, so I have to doubt there was no religious motivation behind it.   

> Originally Posted by mike  Well, the Puritans did not necessarily take over the Indian lands they purged. That is why I have a hard time believing it was about land conquest. It was more about irrational hatred and xenophobia--as all racism and religious intolerance boils down to.   
>  Perhaps you should take your own advice and go read the manifest destiny. Besides I think you can find hundreds and maybe thousands of diary's that would suggest you are wrong. Where do you think modern day United States is anyway?

 Manifest Destiny has nothing to do with the Puritans, so I don't see how it's relevant to this at all.  If you want to talk about the Indians (or the Mexicans) in the rest of the country, then sure.  If I can find hundreds or thousands of these diaries, then I invite you to find just one.  If they are that easy to come by, then by all means find one.  I have no idea what that last question is supposed to mean.   

> Originally Posted by mike        Originally Posted by redchupacabra  According to me(I always wanted to say that) not every last one of them is dead. I have personaly been to the Navajo and Hopi Indian reservation in Arizona.   Well, I said "every last one of them" in reference to the Puritans, and I don't think Arizona was a New England colony.   I was just refering that i have been on a trip there. So starting after the word, "and" i dont understand why you made that comment.

 Because I said the Puritans completely wiped out some tribes of Indians, and then you talked about two tribes that were nowhere near the Puritans or even in the same area of the country.   

> Maybe mike you should be a "supporter of the war guy" go in to politics convince the UN  and throw him in jail and hey, you never know. He just might write a book too.

 This was the part of your quote I didn't understand.  Pronouns don't confuse me, runon sentences with no punctuation do.  I think you meant to say:  "Mike, maybe you should be a 'supporter of the war guy,' go into politics, convince the UN to throw him in jail and--hey, you never know.  He might just write a book too."  If this was the case, I believe he already has written a book.  It was a romance novel that was a bestseller in Iraq, if I remember correctly.  And I doubt Saddam Hussein will be arrested or thrown in jail or even alive after this war.   

> Yes your right notice how you said "the reason we're upset ... he is buying night vision goggles and $ 10 dollar radio jamming devices." First of all i dont think GPS jamming devices cost $10. If you can find one on www.ebay.com for $10 dollars let me know and I will buy one too.

 You're right, I misquoted the Reuters article I read.  It is $50.   

> Hey just another fact for you. According to most recent polls your position on the war in Iraq is now the minority in America.

 It was always the minority in America--and while I could get into the reasons why I think that is, we already have enough issues open for right now.  The problem with US support for the war is, the United States is not the center of the universe.  There are billions of people around the world who don't support this war.  It is actually the first time in the recorded history of man that there has been this popular an opposition against a war.  That really says something about American "love of democracy."  By the way, public support for a war has _always_ increased once the war began.   

> So, im having trouble adding up 1 + 1 on you. Are you against war completley? That there would never be a situtuation that you would not go to war for?

 With the exception of World War 2, I can think of no war in the history of the United States in which I wouldn't have torn up my draft card on my way to the Canadian border (except Vietnam, in which I would've successfully fought the courts that it violated Article I of the Constitution--which says Congress cannot enable the draft in an undeclared war).

----------


## kostya

You all have too much time on your hands.

----------


## piehunt

what it would contain.. 
Please, take it from someone who has read too much about people's opinions about this conflict.... 
Stick to the subject of this forum. ie:helping each other! 
If you want to talk about this sort of thing i can give you a link that will make this place seem like haven from all the bulls**t that's happening in the ME!  ::

----------


## A

piehunt,
show them.
I support you up in this. 
Russian in Latin:
Kto hochet uchastvovat v goriachih realnih bitvah, mojet naity so-otvetstvuiuschiy forum v Internete.
Mogu dat perehod jelauschim. 
This place is sent you from heaven, both the English-speaking studying Russian and the Russians studying English. And, although it is a good idea to touch any subjects, don't turn yourself into fighters - it's too easy and one may does not notice it has happened.
Peace!

----------


## A

Oh, forgot! 
My personal opinion: The war is always a sign of weakness. Guess whose?

----------


## mike

::  Shhh let's keep the forum quiet for a week or two before we start another battle.

----------


## A

Okay, but I would go with "tssss"

----------


## Oddo

I think that anti war people don't back up their arguments at all. Every argument they have can be discredited by the pro war people. I won't go on because it's all been said so far in this thread. 
I would also like to say that any anti war protesters (and I speak specifically about the UK here) who could but did not vote in the last general elections has absolutely no right whatsoever to criticize the government (obviously the schoolkids couldn't vote but they are either new age hippy types who are against war full stop no matter how valid and useful it is- or they are dossers getting out of double maths) People only have their right to free speech because we are a democracy, so they should have voted in the last elections instead of protesting now. I acknowledge that many anti war protesters did vote and I respect their opinions but think that they are misguided.

----------


## mike

Well, first of all your first argument can be completely said about the other half.  In fact, I think it's pointless and stupid to make comments like that which can easily be said in reverse.  Most people, regardless of whether or no they support or oppose something, are just parroting what they hear from others.  But I should add that absolutely none of pro-war's arguments *haven't* been discredited by me on this board so far.  You can bother to read the threads and see for yourself. 
By the way, what do general elections have to do with anything?  90% of Great Britain was consistently against invading Iraq.  If your country is so democratic then why did it completely ignore the overwhelming will of the majority of England's populace?  It shouldn't matter what people were elected or who voted for them, they are supposed to be representing what the people in their districts want.  Who would an anti-war protester vote for anyway?  If the UK is anything like the US most of them probably would have voted Labour Party.  And which party does the most outspoken hawk in this whole affair, Tony Blair, belong to again? 
This whole war wasn't a product of a bunch of people failing to vote.  It was a failure on the part of government in its supposed role of obeying democratic demand.

----------


## V

I haven't got much time right now, maybe I'll write more tomorrow, but just a quick comment: abour half of the UK's population support the war. Not 10%.

----------


## mike

I was quoting statistics BEFORE the war.  "90% of Great Britain was consistently against invading Iraq" not "90% of Great Britain is against the ongoing invasion of Iraq."  Opposition to a war always goes down once that country's troops are involved, probably because of the myth that it lowers troop morale.  However, I've heard many veterans say the soldiers are shielded from domestic news and television and that the troops don't care one way or the other about public support or opposition, and that if anything publicly opposing a war brings the soldiers home faster by holding the government accountable. 
By the way, this thread has 88 replies and is not going anywhere.  When it gets to 90 I am locking it so make the last two count.

----------


## mike

> Oh please, stop with the drama. Mike would repulse the  
> conservative founding fathers with his anarchist extreme left wing views. And  
> I'm not making that up either.

 Found some interesting quotes by Thomas Jefferson, one of our "conservative  
founding fathers:" 
The happiness and prosperity of our citizens is the only legitimate object of  
government. 
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves  
and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. 
The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first  
object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether  
we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a  
government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. 
I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many  
parasites living on the labor of the industrious. 
I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be  
trusted to govern themselves without a master. 
Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will  
they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material  
abundance without character is the path of destruction. 
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. 
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being  
as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of  
the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the  
dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with  
this artificial scaffolding and restore to us the primitive and genuine  
doctrines of this most venerated Reformer of human errors. 
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one,  
he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. 
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than  
standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has  
set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the  
banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.  If the American  
people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by  
inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up  
around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children  
will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. 
Some by the "conservative founding father" Benjamin Franklin: 
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will  
deserve neither and lose both. 
And where is the Prince who can afford to so cover his country with troops for  
its defense, as that ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might not in  
many places do an infinite deal of mischief, before a force could be brought  
together to repel them? 
Even peace may be purchased at too high a price.  
He does not possess wealth; it possesses him. 
The greatest monarch on the proudest throne is obliged to sit upon his own  
arse.  
The strictest law sometimes becomes the severest injustice. 
Savages we call them because their manners differ from ours.  
Some by the "conservative founding father" Thomas Paine: 
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance  
of being right.  
The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general  
association takes place, and common interest produces common security. 
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best stage,  
is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.  
To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.  
From such beginnings of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion? 
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. 
Some by the "conservative founding father" James Madison 
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries. 
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.  
The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.  
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. 
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

----------


## redchupacabra

> Well, first of all your first argument can be completely said about the other half. In fact, I think it's pointless and stupid to make comments like that which can easily be said in reverse. Most people, regardless of whether or no they support or oppose something, are just parroting what they hear from others. But I should add that absolutely none of pro-war's arguments *haven't* been discredited by me on this board so far. You can bother to read the threads and see for yourself.

 Mike I can easy say the same thing about discrediting your comments on the board so far. Before you get your pride hurt and click the edit button to pursue this, I think we should take a look at the following post made by you: 
(Besides this is the only comment I have heard you make on this forum so far that that hasn't been full of (something nasty and smelly)...   

> Shhh let's keep the forum quiet for a week or two before we start another battle.

 I agree. I think the people who cared to comment on the subject did and expressed their opinions to a great extent. If they didn't and / or weren't able to do it in 6 pages of information I would just say tuff.  
Mike I ask of you to please not go over ground already talked about (or close to) in this forum. Please follow your own advice from your previous comment. If you wont please do it for my sake because I have a huge headache from this. 
The bottom line is there is a war in Iraq. Instead of arguing and nonsence we should be concerned with what we *can* do. I don't think any of us here make decisions concerning this conflict. The quesiton you should be asking yourself is, "What can I do to help?" There is great need for aid and many different things. Find your own way to help. Or perhaps you would rather keep arguing and persuing something that is fruitless and in the end is foolishness because it led to nothing. 
Geesh I hope this is the last message in the post. If not maybe our friend should post the retard picture again.

----------


## Lampada

It's almost over!

----------


## Lampada



----------

