War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[Cossack]

God damn Abe, you know the history about the region almost as well as I do. I have been studying Central Asia and that region for a long time (on my own and in school) Dude where did you learn all this stuff? You a natural history buff like me or what? Anyhow back on topic.0
 Bander du must dich selbst besser verhalten. Deine Argumente sind nicht so gut. Kuweit ist das Rheinland von Iraq, ja, aber ist richtig f?r Irak nach Kuweit eindringen? War Kuweit unter Baghdad oder Basra w?hrend der T?rksichen zeit? Ich denke es war Baghdad Abe. Das ist belanglos. Unsere priorit?t sollte N?rd Korea sein. Die West Beschwichtigungspolitik von N?rd Korea, und die Koreanisch gef?hrdetet Amerika mit Atomwaffen. Die N?rd Koreaner sagen, "Amerika hat Massenvernichtungswaffen!" Das ist sehr spa?ig in einer beunruhigenden weise. Warum schreibe ich halb in Deutsch? Nichtdeutsch sprechende sind wahrscheindlich verwirrt.

Translated converstation: Bander you must present yourself better. Your arguments are not so good. Kuwait is the Rhineland of Iraq, but is it right for Iraq to invade? Was Kuwait under Baghdad or Basra in Turkish time? I think it was Baghdad, Abe.
This is unimportant though. However our priority should be North Korea, and the koreans have threatened America with nuclear weapons. The North Koreans say, "America has weapons of mass destruction!" That is very funny in a disturbing way. Why is half my post in German? Non German speakers must be very confused.

As for those like Mauti, Abe, and Bander. Yes I know my German sucks very hard.

[tasty]

These arguments, if they weren't before, have become obsolete. The US going to war no matter what happens at this point, short of Saddam stepping down from power. As Bush said "a matter of weeks not months," and Cheney has "reserved the right for the US to act unilaterally."

We're all powerless to stop it, so we may as well sit back and watch as atrocities are committed in the name of our country. 500,000 estimated civilian casualties, 800 missiles planned to be launched over the 1st 2 days of the attack (twice the amount launched in all of Desert Storm). As Rumsfeld said "there won't be a single safe place left in Iraq." I can't wait till it's citizens are lavishing is with praise for finally liberating them... that is, if you call death liberation. As Bush said to the Iraqi people, "your enemy is not attacking your country, he is ruling your country." I must say I feel the same way.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

These arguments, if they weren't before, have become obsolete. The US going to war no matter what happens at this point, short of Saddam stepping down from power. As Bush said "a matter of weeks not months," and Cheney has "reserved the right for the US to act unilaterally."

And while I don't believe him, he also said that the weeks was to give deplomacy a chance.  

Also, while I still haven't made up my own mind, if Iraq is guilty of the majority of things that are being hinted at, how long do you suggest we let it go on?  Better to do it sooner then later if it needs to be done, no?

500,000 estimated civilian casualties

I was reading the news (BBC) and I myself, don't count those 500,000 as civilian.  They reported how the first 100,000 civilians had shown up to act as human shields at military and government complexes.  Guess what, that's an active participation.  If someone is stupid enough to go pitch a tent next to an obvious military target, ON PURPOSE, they are no longer innocent civilians.  They are proof of some of Darwin's theories.

800 missiles planned to be launched over the 1st 2 days of the attack (twice the amount launched in all of Desert Storm).

Ok, this one really bugs me.  So what are you saying, we should go to war half-way if and when we do?  Honestly, if war comes, why the hell shouldn't it be done quickly and with massive power?  Once war starts, it's better over quickly.  The longer it goes one, the more suffering (death from other factors besides bombs and bullets).

As Bush said to the Iraqi people, "your enemy is not attacking your country, he is ruling your country." I must say I feel the same way.

Tasty, there's a big difference.  I don't like Bush, but he doesn't rule our country.  We have those all important checks and balances.  If the Bush does something against the law, he can be removed.  And we've proven that in the past.  And Bush doesn't have the right to go to war on his own.  He can only go so far without Congress's approval.

On top of all this, our laws can be changed.  If the office of the President is too powerful in your opinon, I'm sure you can find a group to help support in changing it.  That's something that we have that most others don't.  So don't whine like we don't have any power to do things.  Have you even bothered to write your Senator and Congressman about it yet?  (Do you even know who your Congressman is??)  Most people (especially the kids here, but I thought better of you Tasty) forget that your Congressman is supposed to be your voice in our government.  Use them.  If you are really against the war, use the tools that are provided.  Don't be one of those guys that complains about the system but never does his part.

Like I said, I'm still not sold on the need for war yet.  I don't believe everything I hear from our government, and I don't believe much of anything from theirs either.  But what I do think that if war comes, it's best done quickly and overwhelmingly.  

For the people that ask why not just assinate the asshole, remember that murdering a head of state is a large no no.  

[kami]

Heu, I really need to refine my German, I understood about half of that, I shouldn't have slept during my German lessons back then, got an F in it too ;P
Bander, stop thinking and go to bed, you're being just as brainless as many of the people you're arguing against.

Who cares what belonged to whom way back then, hell, Finland, the Baltics, Prussia, half of Norway and lots of other stuff used to belong to Sweden, let's re-annex shall we? (Hey, I'd really enjoy that!) My point is, even though the territories used to belong to blabla, doesn't make them the ?legal? owner of it now.

Abe, that was a really stupid thing to compare with. I mean, you think it's good to compare the US with something as malevolent as a godfather?

To Bucc; I guess you could call the discussion about whether the US is going to war or not ?obsolete?, but nothing else is as of yet.
Ok, so if you want a war to be over as quickly as possible and with as much power as possible, why not just use a nuke, great logic eh! (Don't take this dead seriously, k?)
The enemy of the Iraqi people is not just their leader, the enemy is also the US since they're just about to kill half of the population (don't take my estimation seriously either).

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Wow Europeans really are trash. You know not of what you talk about because you sit on your ass smoking pot and boning each other. What would you know about America anyway? You sit in some god forsaken shit town in the middle of no where without a bright future. So please....stick to your homoerotic goat raping ways and stay out of what doesn't involve you.

For your information im 19 yrs. old and an architecture major at Texas Tech University. I have a girlfriend and am quite social. Yes I am a cunt and proud of it.

Go fuck yourselves eurotrash...I pray for the day when your country crosses the line and we end up sticking our guns in your ass.

[Cossack]

Kami is European he isnt trash, I am technicaly European and I am not trash (some people consider russia europe some dont). Py is a good guy. Everything is cool about him, he has a gf, several bfs (including me), the only bad thing is that he goes to Texas Tech. Dont generalize Euros on Bander. As for Bucc, arguing against the war isnt obsolete until it starts, and even then there will be protests, possibly on the scale of Vietnam. Civil disobedience is never obsolete!

[tasty]

Also, while I still haven't made up my own mind, if Iraq is guilty of the majority of things that are being hinted at, how long do you suggest we let it go on?  Better to do it sooner then later if it needs to be done, no?

Problem is, I don't think it needs to be done. For me, the diplomatic/intelligence factors that are still up in the air don't really even have an effect on my opinion.  We've been over this before, and I recognize this war as a strategic move in the Middle East. Nothing more. As far as Bush's "moral" arguments for war, that is just junk designed to help win over the general public. If we truly cared about human casualties, we would have intervened in Rwanda where over 1,000,000 Tutsi tribesmen have died under Holocaust-like genocide and massacres. Liberating the Iraqi is bullshit. Bush Sr. justified Desert Storm by proclaiming that they wanted to bring democracy to Kuwait. Well, Kuwait wasn't a democracy then and it isn't now... but somehow in between there our oil problems were solved. It's no wonder Bush wants to move quickly on this now, as the Venezuelan oil workers are still striking and we are having difficulty getting the amount we typically use.

I was reading the news (BBC) and I myself, don't count those 500,000 as civilian.  They reported how the first 100,000 civilians had shown up to act as human shields at military and government complexes.  Guess what, that's an active participation.  If someone is stupid enough to go pitch a tent next to an obvious military target, ON PURPOSE, they are no longer innocent civilians.  They are proof of some of Darwin's theories.

Hmm, haven't heard of this. Although it sounds suspiciously propaganda-like I wouldn't discount anything happening in this crazy world. Although their actions are calculated, they are still civilians and they are still dying by our weapons. This really makes me think back to the Vietnam War when the Buddhist monks self-immolated. Kind of sad.

Honestly, if war comes, why the hell shouldn't it be done quickly and with massive power?

I already said that I didn't think we should go to war, so the more brutal the punishment we are going to lay on Iraq, the more appalling I find it. Yes, if war must occur this may end it more quickly. But if it doesn't work, it just ends in more casualties for no reason. I think that the symbolism of this action must also be looked at. How do you think the Muslim world will view this action? I think its going to add a lot of fuel to the fire of hatred, which is bad from a security perspective since it increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The attitude of the Bush administration is that if we let the opinions of the Muslim world affect our policy than the terrorists have already won. This policy basically creates a perpetual state of war or almost-war. Echoing the sentiments of most experts of international relations, this is policy is shortsighted and arrogant.

[tasty]

eek, double post

On top of all this, our laws can be changed.  If the office of the President is too powerful in your opinon, I'm sure you can find a group to help support in changing it.  That's something that we have that most others don't.  So don't whine like we don't have any power to do things.  Have you even bothered to write your Senator and Congressman about it yet?  (Do you even know who your Congressman is??)  Most people (especially the kids here, but I thought better of you Tasty) forget that your Congressman is supposed to be your voice in our government.  Use them.  If you are really against the war, use the tools that are provided.  Don't be one of those guys that complains about the system but never does his part.

My congressman is Jim Leech (R), and my two senators are Tom Harking (D) and Charles Grassley (R). And no, I didn't have to look them up. I didn't bother writing them about this issue because every time I've written them about an issue I have received a canned response with a photocopied signature that didn't even address the question I asked. I have participated in the campus anti-war movement, and have attended every war protest that has been held on campus. If you couldn't tell by the disillusioned tone of my initial post, I don't see my actions having much effect on anything. Even on a college campus, most people consider it uncool to care about what goes on in the world around you and many don't have any social conscience at all as far as I can tell. I'm going to keep doing what I can, but realize that I'm about 25 times more active in civic activities than most. I work for what I think is right, I just find that despite what I do that little changes. The whole point of my initial post was just to state how disgusted I am with the whole process. That at least in the current administration, in the end the government just does what it wants anyway.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

There are some good points in this thread, and a lot of bad points in this thread...I'll respond only if it throws me to the boiling point because I don't feel like making a four post response.

As a side note: Tasty, if they go to the military installations as human shields, they lose the title of civilian and gain the title of target.

Py: You sound rather pig-headed...cool down with the rhetoric.

[*DAMN Exe1{utioner]

So whos there who has to be scared from Saddam anymore?

I think everyone should be scared of a person that could desintegrate everyone you know at the touch of a button.  I disagree with bombing, because of civilian casualties.  But that is inevitable.  War always has its collateral damage(right term??), unfortunatly.  But I open up a newsweek magazine, and all I see is a bunch of Iraqis gathered around a dirty, torn up, burnt/shat on/whatever..  U.S. flag.  It's like they are beggin for it.  If I had it my way, they would go after Saddam like you wouldnt belive.  Special Forces, SEALs, Rangers, the works.  Yeah, I realize that a guy like Saddam is very hard to get to.  But its not impossible.  The man deserves a big fat .50 calibur bullet to his skull.  

-Exe

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

Well Ass Im just pissed that some fucknut comes in here trying to pick a fight with me when I did nothing but comment about this soon to be war. Honestly I hope he takes a lead pipe through the head.


Sack I should have been more specific when I said Eurotrash. Im mainly talking about the super liberal countries (i.e. Sweden) and of course the ones who don't appreciate what we do.

[kami]

Ok Py, so every country that disagrees with you is trash? Oh yeah, I love that! Fucking stupid, that's all it is. Oh and btw, Sweden is not ?super liberal?, it's actually pretty socialistic (to my dislike I might add).
I am not trying to pick a fight but if you say euro trash to me then you are the one who's trying to ?pick a fight?.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Kami & Tasty,

First, let me correct one great injustice that you are doing Tasty.  Supporting war isn't supporting Bush.  I have no illusions that Bush is doing this for the right reasons.  And it just doesn't matter.

If (still a big if, just like it has been for me), IF Iraq has weapons of mass distruction, or IF they are found producing and/or providing biological or chemical weapons to terrorists, then it's going in and removing that threat is the right thing to do.  I don't care about Bush's reasons, or lack thereof.  He is just as capable of doing the right thing for the wrong reason as anyone.

It's like I've said all along.  If Iraq is crossing that line, then action must be taken.  Yes, that means war and death.  But, do you honestly fucking believe that if Iraq is doing those things, it doesn't mean death for some poor bastards if no action is taken??

Kami, don't be an extreemist like that.  How many people have died because of Iraq?  How many more may in the future if something isn't done?  Nobody is advocating the use of nukes, which is one of the very things I am worried about.  Saddam obviously doesn't care about the effects on the rest of the world (just look back to his lighting the oil fields on fire).

It sounds like your distrust of Bush and your contempt of his real motives has blinded you to the fact that Iraq may still be a real threat.

BTW, the comment about "this policy creates a perpetual state of war or almost-war" made me laugh.  This policy doesn't create it.  The state of war or almost-war has existed in the middle east for how long before either Bush??  I don't agree with the way Bush has wanted to go after Iraq from the start.  But please, you are just spouting more anti-war propoganda.  

So ignore Bush, and tell me why we should trust Iraq, and Saddam to have these weapons.  Saddam has already shown that he'll use chemical weapons, why don't you think he'd be stupid enough to use a nuke if he could?  Why don't you think we should do something about it?  Ignore Bush, he's only an issue if it's WRONG.  His reasons are wrong, but it doesn't change that fact that it MAY need to be done for the right reasons.

Now back to news about the Columbia going down.  

[kami]

I'm not defending Saddam in any way, let's make that clear, he's a mad dictator that should be removed.
What I am upset about is that the US and the UK is doing, is interpreting the UN resolution differently from everyone else, they think that by just making the UN investigations harder - not cooperating as extensively as you might want, Iraq is breaking the resolution. The last paragraph in the resolution only states that they will be punished if they go against the resolution totally. That's the line that most of the UN is following. If the US and the UK crosses the UN now, they might just undermine UN credibility and cripple all the other UN missions around the world, that would create a very dangerous situation.

[Ace]

Kami, Saddam blatantly broke the UN resolution so many times while Clinton was in office, yet Clinton lacked the testicular fortitude to do what needed to be done. Bush is trying to correct Clinton's mistake. And for the thousandth time, no US support = no UN. We are the only reason the UN has any crediblity in the first place. Besides, if we let Saddam violate the terms of a UN resolution, tell me exactly how this makes the UN more credible?

[kami]

The former resolution wasn't shaped in the same way as the new one (from last year). The UN is the best we have, perhaps it's not good enough but where would we be without it?

[*DAMN Bander]

@Cossak: Dein deutsch ist ausgezeichnet.

Peps: The reason why i stopped to discuss with "ultra american patriots" via web forums is that simple one:

It makes NO damn different what they say or do, cuz its their goverment wich rules the fucking planet. they just THINk they are part of that power but they are just their slaves.

No matter of "good" or "dumb" american - its just some oil greedy clans who rule that world.

Just answer ma ONE fucking question: WHY didnt u sukcaz remove fucking saddam during the last war? WHY bombing their innocent people AGAIN now?
U already had the chance to stuff a gun into his ass - but why to hell did u pack your tails and run away last time?

As a consequence the people u want to "liberate" have starved cruel under the embargos while saddam and family still has a fat stomac and best medical care in their pallazzos.

i just argue on what Bushman aka Mr. One Man Show says. And he talks crap.

war should be condamned by all "civilisated" nations - especially when not backed by (useless or not) U.N. (where the U.S. have the most imprtantst role to play. thats right. but u start breaking the rules so u are destroying this institution. it only works cuz its full of MANY nations - not only led by brute power)

bah, it doesnt help anyway, lets hear what bushman says tomorrow ...

peace anyways ~

Bander

and cuntpussy: u are an 19 years old idiot then. be well.

X

[|MP|Buccaneer]

they just THINk they are part of that power but they are just their slaves.

Hurray!  They jaded european propoganda machine is still working in overtime, isn't it Bander.  Just answer me one little thing tough guy, if America sucks so much ass like you think, why do so many people come here?  You don't see many people leaving America to move to Germany or Austria, do you?  

You seem to have half a brain, why not try to lift that hash induced fog and figure out that there is a lot more good here then you give it credit for?  Oh, because your kind always needs something to hate.  I forgot.  It's just Americans now, and not Jews like 60 years ago.

Just answer ma ONE fucking question: WHY didnt u sukcaz remove fucking saddam during the last war? WHY bombing their innocent people AGAIN now?
U already had the chance to stuff a gun into his ass - but why to hell did u pack your tails and run away last time?

This question is about as stupid as the rest of your shit Bander.  You profess to be well read and educated, but you don't seem to understand much about the way war actually works.  In the first Gulf War (which happened when I was in college and your age), Iraq sued for peace.  They gave up and pleaded with the UN.  They surrendered conditionally.  They agreed to many military restrictions and inspections (limited weapons, no-fly zones, etc) and it was agreed upon with the UN.  That's it, game over.  Can't keep going when they raise the white flag.

In the war, Saddam couldn't be hit, he's not a very visible target (especially with as many doubles as he uses).  After the war, that would be a rather large no-no, besides being stupid.  You don't assasinate a head of state, not when you have the moral high ground.  Not if you want to keep the moral high ground.

And, the fact that Iraq has never lived up to it's end of the bargin is why shit keeps happening, and why another war may happen.

So Bander, take your ignorant, idiotic anti-American bullshit and spread it where the people may be too stupid to see it for what it is.  Or smoke it.  I don't care.  But it's not a language thing, it's really a ignorance thing with you.  You are just like all the other hateful people, thinking your shit doesn't stink.  Well it does.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Diplomatic actions until war are going to be as fake as those  from the Japenese before Pearl Harbor. We are going to slaughter everyone in our site in Iraq and us civilians can not do anything about it.  So kick back and watch the limited axcess of CNN who will report great victories, but they wont report over un armed civilians.

[*(SPU) mono]

bah. i din't real the whole 3 pages of this thread, but some things here can't stay undisputed. some of the following points may be redundant with earlier posts, my apologies in advance.

1. "jaded european propoganda machine is still working in overtime" - sure is, but it has still way to go until it reaches same efficiency as the american one. omg, does anyone here believe what he sees on TV? omg

2.  "if America sucks so much ass like you think, why do so many people come here" - well, do i care? quantity == quality? omg again. "if britney spears sucks so much ass, why do so many people love her?" i don't care at all, i don't come along well (at least politically, and with regard to music) with maybe 95% of my fellow citizens anyway, so why should i care? btw, i have very good friends in the states, but do i have to love everyone there? this "be with us or be against us" shit sickens me to death.

3. bush, rumsfeld, powell & co always tell us that everyone has to support them, or else the UN will lose its credibility. this is bullshit, in fact it will be losing its credibility because the US, blatantly, say: support us or we will do without you. this would be a serious precedent; why should any other country in this world follow the UN's rules if even our glorious leader of the world doesn't?

4. the point of "we have to enforce the resolution 1441 by all means or the UN will lose its credibility" is just the same bullshit; would the US bomb tel aviv because it neclects to follow order of a whole shitload of UN resolutions? obviously not. enforcing the UN resolutions would be very ok, but then please same right for everybody.

and on a sidenote, saddam (as well as ibn ladin for that matter), is entirely a creature of the US, carefully manufactured to fight placeholder wars (like against the evil red empire). pity if you can't get rid of the ghosts you once called, but SHAME on you if you don't even admit that they're your ghosts.

anyway, i really thinks it sucks *big time* that ppl here don't seem to be able to discuss in a civilized manner, but resort to personal insults, racism/nationalism, and all this shit. it is an interesting and important topic imho where both sides have their points, but this kind of arguments don't seem to lead anywhere. at first i wanted to stay out of the debate anyway, but couldn't resist in the end...

and finally, to give you a real reason to flame me (please note the following link is SATIRE and SARCASM and if you take it all serious and personal, not my problem and you better stay out if you're easily offended) - http://www.strike-free.net --> choose your language --> choose "dark side"