|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 18th, 2004 02:20 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Hey, Vinth, you cowardly bag of shit, hows about you post that letter that's easily found? 'Cause I recall how fast you were to post the last letter that was easily found. You dared us to ask you to post it, and then you started whining and crying little a little schoolgirl about how it was gone and you didn't have to prove nothin' to no one. "Oh! OH! I'm Vinth! And I thay that if girl thays thomthing I don't like she is FLAT! All the girls how like me have HUGE TITTIES! OH! OH! I Said TITIES, TITTIES, OH, OH, I have spoojed my footy PJ's from saying TITTIES out loud!" |
|
| Mar 18th, 2004 11:51 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
There are, however, a few flaws in the latter argument: - Ask East Timor and the people of the Western Sahara what good UN resolutions do you when those who were/are occupying you are allied with the United States (namely Indonesia and Morocco). - Another one of our allies, Turkey, still stands in violation of UN resolutions 353 and 354, which call for them to pull their troops out of Cyprus. No dice there. - Our largest recipient of military aid, Israel, is in violation of countless UN resolutions. Now you can say most of them are bullshit, maybe even anti-semetic, but then ALL UN resolutions (like bills in our own congress) have a bit of politicized spice to them. If the UN is flawed, why have we become the thugs that enforce their resolutions...? I'm also assuming we'll be dealing with these countries shortly, right Ronnie...? - OOH!! HERE'S THE CLINCHER!!! The UN was never even allowed to vote on the American invasion of Iraq!! WHY? Because they probably would've voted against it! WOW! So while we're enforcing resolutions and such, we simultaneously chastize the UN for being "irrelevant" and useless. Classy. I see another problem here. In your own words, you said " After 9/11 it was clear that it was no longer time to play games and we had to actually enforcing U.N. resolutions." But wait.....that wasn't why we invaded Iraq, right Ronnie? Your arguments about freeing enslaved people, eliminating a dictator (a dictator that got along prety well with Reagan and Rumsfeld, but a dictator either way), enforcing the sanctity of UN resolutions, etc. etc.....these arguments arev all well and good. However, they WERE NOT the premise for war in Iraq, and they WERE NOT the way the war was packaged and sold to the American people. Iraq supposedly had WMD. In fact, they were at least "stockpiling" chemical weapons, right? Wait, wait, what about the "45 minute" attack I kept hearing about? Ya know, the one in the British dossier that was later used by Colin Powell while addressing that oh-so-sacred institution, the UN....? Look at popular polls. A high proportion of Americans believed, and still believe, that Saddam was behind 9/11. Now what, or who, might've lead them to believe that, huh? In your own words, you said that after 9/11, the atmosphere changed, and it was time to clean house on our enemies (and ex-employees apparently). And clearly, prior to 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and the other rotten neo-cons who fill this administration thought the same way. And in the process, in their (and your) drive to use 9/11 as an excuse to deal with old problems, the president you voted for deliberately mislead the American people. God bless it. |
|
| Mar 18th, 2004 10:54 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
There were inspections for over 11 years and Saddam never did abide by U.N. resolutions including the cease fire agreement which stated that he must prove that he destroyed his WMD....which he never did. WE never proved that he had them in the first place, you fucking tool. After 9/11 it was clear that it was no longer time to play games and we had to actually enforcing U.N. resolutions. How exactly was it "clear"? Was it clear because obviously all those dirty sand******s are in it together against us? Or have you found some link between 9-11 and Iraq that the White House has for some reason neglected to exploit the bejeezus out of it? |
|
| Mar 18th, 2004 04:58 AM | ||
| Dole |
"This supposed letter can be easily found. Unfortuantely for you, no one will ever find "good looks", a "decent chest", or an "original thought" when it comes to your person." -You try and make a 'serious' point, someone calls you up on it, and your only response is name calling. Way to back up your arguments, dickhead. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:59 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Quote:
Was neener neener pumpkin eater beyond your logic skills? |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:19 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Hehehe, actually, I've seen pictures of Punkgrrrl, and she's really kinda cute. Now you, O Rotund and Flabby One, have yet show yourself as yet. I won't even begin talking about your originality, or rather, the lack thereof. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:14 PM | ||
| VinceZeb |
[quote="punkgrrrlie10Fourth, this supposed letter, is it circulating w/the submarine letter? And do you think that it's not just some 13 year old who wants to just be stupid? Of course you don't, but until I get some sort of authentication, how can it be really taken seriously?[/quote] This supposed letter can be easily found. Unfortuantely for you, no one will ever find "good looks", a "decent chest", or an "original thought" when it comes to your person. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:07 PM | ||
| Ronnie Raygun |
"The weapons issue was never a good reason because a) Bush never gave the inspections a chance to work, without even any sign of their obstruction," We can debate this for as long as we live and the outcome will be the same....you will lose. There were inspections for over 11 years and Saddam never did abide by U.N. resolutions including the cease fire agreement which stated that he must prove that he destroyed his WMD....which he never did. After 9/11 it was clear that it was no longer time to play games and we had to actually enforcing U.N. resolutions. "b) Even if they were armed to the teeth, Iraq would be too chicken shit to ever use them because Israel has been looking for the slightest opportunity to beat the crap out of any Arab state to make an example," There was never an issue whether or not Iraq would use them. The Bush administration stated that it was worried that those weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists that would sneak them into The United States. "c) there was never reliable intelligence that showed that they had any WMD in the first place." It was reliable enough for Clinton to use unilateral action in Iraq in the 90's. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 01:21 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Agreed I'm with Ror here. Having spent time in the region, as Im sure he has, I came to the personal conclusion that conflict on this scale was an inevitability, and not necessarily a bad thing. I honestly believe that given the amount of resources, manpower, time, etc that we were expending in the region, it was going to happen eventually. I personally was not opposed to the actual war itself. I think it served several purposes. In my opinion the problem was the lack of support/failure to prepare for the long term. Clearly the U.S. has the most formidable and capable military in the world. There was no doubt before or after that the U.S. could "go it alone" in terms of the actual conflict. It's what came/comes after that required the support of the international community, and that has led to the ongoing problems. Had their been UN involvement from the start in the rebuilding process, the U.S. would have been able to ease itself out of the process, at least on the surface, and appear less like an occupier and more like the liberator it has tried to be. The longer we stay, the more it plays into the hands of the idea that the U.S. intends to run the country. Quite frnakly I believe from a strategic standpoint, the war was fought expertly. The use of air power and speed with which the ground forces were able to move is a testament to modern warfare. Precision weapons were used to a degree that has never been seen before. U.S. forces were able to "do more with less" by maximizing the use of technololgy. While any civilian casualties are regrettable, when viewed statistically the overall number of casualties on both sides is remarkably small considering the fact that we're talking about occupying an entire country, with the bulk of combat being fought in urban, heavily populated areas. The single biggest failure is the lack of preperation for the latter stages. Now we've dug ourselves a hole we cannot climb out of. We've created this mess, and we're unable to free ourselves from it based upon our insistence to go it alone. The best option in my mind at this point is to allow the U.N. to be involved as heavily in the rebuilding process as possible to allow the U.S. to withdraw it's overt involvement. But that's just me. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:52 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Technically, I never supported the war. 1446 was always a trumped up charge. . .However, I did -and do- view it as an eventuality. The region is a hotbed of insurrectionist activity, much of it -at least in its initial phases- caused by numb, fumbling foreign activity -Read the US. We've been stirring that stew since at least 1954. Peace is always a worthy aim, and anything which would unify the Arab peoples and secure their place in world events merits careful evaluation. Saddam was an quasi-isolationist with delusions grandeur and a taste for extravagance, he was counter productive to Iraq's best interests. If, somehow, within the fallout of everything that has happened there, a stable and consistant government arises. . .Well, I can hardly say it would have been worth it, but I do believe the world would be better off than it was three years past. EDIT: I always assumed we would invade Syria after Afghanistan, due to Russia's contrary involvement there, but, alas. . .I was wrong there, as I often am in my predictions. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:29 AM | ||
| mburbank | Vinth, jutht wanted to they the redethine of your thite thucks. | |
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:16 AM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:11 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
I applaud your coherence for once. Nevertheless... The first is that Saddam had 12 years to comply with the U.N. sancations that were placed upon him after Gulf War I. The burden of proof here falls on those who say that he failed to comply, and such evidence has never surfaced. He had jerked inspectors around constantly and would not comply. The only instance that the pro-war lobby could point to for this idea was in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox. The problem is, the inspectors left Iraq voluntarily and of their own accord. Even if this wasn't the best idea for Iraq's public image, can you really blame the inspectors? All he would have had to do was produce video tapes, documents, ANYTHING that proves he destroyed his cache of WMDs. He insisted that he never had them in the first place, and the American people have yet to be presented with credible evidence to the contrary. Saddam did virtually everything the US asked him to do, and the thanks he got was a pointless invasion and two murdered sons. The WMDs not being there does not mean that he did not have them. Whacko liberals like I meet here in Europe have a crazy notion that goes something like "innocent until proven guilty." I have an itching that it somehow applies here. Second, I believe (and evidence shows) that Saddam was a terrorist supporter. To this end, you can't possibly make any point that couldn't be applied moreso to any other Arab government. And are you really so dense to think that we went to war to help out Israel? Is that what you're trying to imply? With this logic, the most sensible thing for us to have done would be to go apeshit on Saudi Arabia or Yemen or somewhere of that sort. Why would Al-Queda and Osama give a flying fuck about the U.S. invading Iraq if Osama hated Saddam and the Iraqi people? Al-Quaeda doesn't hate the Iraqi people, it hates the Iraqi government. Time and time again I have seen it demonstrated that the fundamental flaw with the American mindset is that it is incapable of holding the people of a nation in a different light than its government. Consider the people who supported the war just because our fearless leader told them to. Consider our resentment for the French people for Chirac's anti-war stance, and consider our comradery with Spain for joining the war effort even though the Spanish people were more opposed to the war than those of France or Germany. Terrorist organizations that would love to see Saddam dead nevertheless perceived the war on Iraq and the 3000 utterly pointless civilian deaths it tolled as an intrusion of Westerners upon their Arab brethren. Simple as that. Finally, our invasion of Iraq and stiffiling of Saddam's rule has hindered terrorists from recruitment and completion of plans. Manufactured bullshit. I think last week's attacks showed how stifling it was.  [/i]
|
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 11:06 AM | ||
| Bennett |
Quote:
|
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 10:57 AM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Quote:
Fourth, this supposed letter, is it circulating w/the submarine letter? And do you think that it's not just some 13 year old who wants to just be stupid? Of course you don't, but until I get some sort of authentication, how can it be really taken seriously? In addition, there are some that say invasion of Iraq has only created MORE terrorists and MORE anti-American sentiment, along with the new socialist PM for Spain being elected in response to the bombing of their trains has only fueled the feelings of actually accomplishing thing among terrorists. And if it's so obvious that the WMDs are in Syria, why did we invade Iraq? |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 10:46 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Sethomas, you asked an (I assume) honest question, so I will give you a honest answer: I supported the war for many reasons. The first is that Saddam had 12 years to comply with the U.N. sancations that were placed upon him after Gulf War I. He had jerked inspectors around constantly and would not comply. All he would have had to do was produce video tapes, documents, ANYTHING that proves he destroyed his cache of WMDs. The WMDs not being there does not mean that he did not have them. That is the line of thinking that parents use when they visit their kid in college: "If I don't see the kid's bong, that means that they are not a druggie." Besides, it's obvious where the WMDs are: Syria. Second, I believe (and evidence shows) that Saddam was a terrorist supporter. His payments to suicide bombers in Palestine, his terrorist training camps throughout the years, and his constant shadyness when it came to his WMDs is proof enough for me. To trust the man would be to trust a thief to house-sit. Third, I believe some of the best evidence is the 201 dead bodies that littered Spain. Al-Queda attacked Spain becuase they supported the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq. For the past 2 years, liberals have done everything but go door-to-door and scream at people that Osama hated Saddam and Osama considered Saddam an infidel and would attack his country next. Why would Al-Queda and Osama give a flying fuck about the U.S. invading Iraq if Osama hated Saddam and the Iraqi people? I figured he would have congradulated us for capturing the dumb bastard. Finally, our invasion of Iraq and stiffiling of Saddam's rule has hindered terrorists from recruitment and completion of plans. There has been a letter circulating round the intraweb that is from an Al-Queda (I believe) member that has stated that because of the victory in Iraq, the ability to perform terrorist functions has been severely damaged. And, in short, thats why I supported the war. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:36 AM | ||
| Zhukov | Ah, I see. The "Saddam killed millions" argument is my guess, then. | |
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:29 AM | ||
| Sethomas | I suppose I wasn't clear enough, but what I meant to ask was whether or not everyone maintains the stance they held a year ago (god, it doesn't seem that long ago) and, if so, whether or not for the precise same reasons. The ethical thing to do now that the war is said and done is a completely different issue. | |
| Mar 17th, 2004 09:07 AM | ||
| Zhukov |
"Because if we pull out it will be anarchy and civil war!" This is what EVERYONE says now. Bush supporters or no. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 08:55 AM | ||
| Triad-Brother Choi |
The reason so many still support the war is because it is demanded of them to support all the actions of their commander and chief unconditionally, or else suffer the unquestionable horror of being called 'UnAmerican'. Also 'all dirty foreigners deserve a whopping'. Yours fawningly, Choi. |
|
| Mar 17th, 2004 08:29 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
Attn: I-Mockery conservatives Everyone is entitled to the right to change one's mind. I confess that at the time of the last elections, between the two main candidates I would have chosen Bush. Knowing what I do now, I see that such would have been a mistake. As of now, for those of you who still support the war, what are your reasons for believing that the war was rightly fought? The weapons issue was never a good reason because a) Bush never gave the inspections a chance to work, without even any sign of their obstruction, b) Even if they were armed to the teeth, Iraq would be too chicken shit to ever use them because Israel has been looking for the slightest opportunity to beat the crap out of any Arab state to make an example, and c) there was never reliable intelligence that showed that they had any WMD in the first place. The argument that the war was fought for altruistic reasons, that is to save the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator, is fundamentally flawed and utterly stupid because it's wholly implausible that we prevented more deaths than we caused with a 3000+ civilian casualty rate. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but really, why support the war at this point? |
|
