PDA

View Full Version : The President's speech...



Emperor Howdy
10-08-2002, 02:51 AM
I hope you saw it. I thought it was excellent.

scruffziller
10-08-2002, 03:05 AM
Nope, didn't even know.

Jargo
10-08-2002, 08:38 AM
Which president would that be then?

floppy hat jon
10-08-2002, 08:49 AM
The speech was fine but I'm insulted that he's using September 11th as a justification for war on a country that wasn't even involved. How long does the Bush administration get to call "9/11 - we get to do whatever we want"? Is there a statute of limitations on praying on the fear of the American public? I'm sorry but I just can't agree to a war based on a bunch of maybe's, if's, and possibly's. Get those inspectors back in there and see what's really going on in Iraq.

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 08:49 AM
Watching paint dry would be more inspiring..........

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 09:01 AM
I agree floppy hat jon. Sadly he has a lot of people convinced that because of 9/11 we can go blazing into any country we want to extract justice. All we have to do is have some sort of lose tie to terrorism, not even those associated with Al Queda, and the US military should be let loose with the blessing of all the other UN countries.

I'm not against eliminating these terrorist cells but I don't want to see us dragged into a military conflict without support from any other country. Heck, if we "win" and we are the only country involved who do you think will be responsible for the next decade of rebuilding? Who's military is going to sit there and police them? Who's tax payers money is going to be spent?

I hope he waits until after the inspectors have done all they can AND we've gotten the full backing of the UN.

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 09:07 AM
Well...the speech was intended to stop the negative slide in opinion polls about an invasion of Iraq. Of course he's going to use 9/ 11..............the theory of course is that it will drive the american people to say "Yes, go and start a war with Iraq! Give 'em Hell GWB!"

What I found amusing was his mention of The Clinton administration ...looking to get some lefties to agree with him.

derek
10-08-2002, 09:33 AM
.
Heck, if we "win" and we are the only country involved who do you think will be responsible for the next decade of rebuilding? Who's military is going to sit there and police them? Who's tax payers money is going to be spent?

actually in all seriousness, after we liberate iraq, the U.S. government should take over their oil fields and sell the oil to U.S. and foreign oil companies untill we've covered our expences.

i find it very interesting that those same people who are against us liberating iraq were the one's crying the loudest for us to liberate bosnia and kosovo.

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 11:15 AM
Taking over oil fields to benefit one's country or even to cover one's expenses was tried once before in the early 40's in Ploesti. This decision shouldn't be based on oil.

Roughly 50% of our oil is imported. Percentage of oil is imported from:

Iraq: 6.6%
Saudi Arabia: 18.9%

Canada: 19.1%
Mexico: 14.5%

Venezuela: 17.3%

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw192supp.shtml

Very little of our imported oil comes from that little portion of the world. Only 25% is imported from the Middle East. Yeah, it's a lot of oil but a lot of people are under the impression that the Middle East is a majority of our oil supply which it isn't. Not even close.

LTBasker
10-08-2002, 11:27 AM
Didn't see it.

How much could you see the puppeteer hand this time? :crazed:

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 12:00 PM
It got a little embarrassing when one of his strings broke. During most of the speech he rambled on and on about wanting to be a real boy. ;)

El Chuxter
10-08-2002, 12:10 PM
I didn't see it, and if I had, I would've muted it and played a tape of Brak mumbling. It would've been far more intelligent.

The Overlord Returns
10-08-2002, 12:11 PM
Here's a few interesting tidbits on what this war might also be about:

1. Iraq has proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of oil (compared with Russias 49 billion, and 15 billion in the Caspian states).

2. Iraq also has, after Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest reserves of untapped petroleum.

3. Hussein has begun parcelling out concessions to Iraqs most promising oil fields to oil firms in Europe, Russia, and China.

4. According to the Intl. Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook, Hussein has awarded contracts for an estimated potential 44 billion barrels - equal to the combined reserves of The U.S., Canada, and Norway- to the above nations.

5. Iraqi dissidents HAND PICKED by Washington to lead the new govt. in Baghdad have stated they would cancel ALL contracts awarded to firms in countries that fail to assist in the ousting of Saddam. It has also been stated that this regime would award these contracts to US firms after the switch.

So..........interesting reasons for how oil relates to this war against Iraq.

Yep, GWB's prime concerns are stemming the tide of this "dangerous" tyrant and freeing the Iraqi people.

JON9000
10-08-2002, 12:29 PM
The main problem I have is that there is no plan being put forth on how to deal with a post Saddam Iraq. If we were to take over the oil fields, there would be 2 results.

1. The arab states and most of the world would see the war as a veiled attempt to grab the oil, and what little international credibility we have would be gone.

2. We would need to install a puppet, who would be derided by just about everyone in Iraq for being Bush's stooge.

I haven't heard any Iraqi dissident talk about establishing a true democracy. Without it, any leader would be in constant fear for his life and rule as a paranoid tyrant (just like Saddam). Except now he would be committing atrocities with the backing of the US government. South Vietnam Ngo Diem part deux.

So until I see a plan that looks like it will work, Bush can save the salesmanship for his fan club.

Nuclear Technology is out there. Eventually every country will have it. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Pandora's box has been opened. It's only a matter of time before Prometheus finds his way to Baghdad and everywhere else.

2-1B
10-08-2002, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by derek
i find it very interesting that those same people who are against us liberating iraq were the one's crying the loudest for us to liberate bosnia and kosovo.

I see your point, derek. :)
I heard so much about how much of a "murderous tyrant" Milosovich was, and now when they want to get rid of another tyrant who has killed countless people . . . . they're told not to go in there.

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 01:04 PM
I guess GWB is a good 'ol Texas boy that he's always got oil on the mind.

El Chuxter
10-08-2002, 02:01 PM
The thing that would most solve all our problems in the Middle East is simple: kill our dependence on oil. But under Bush (an oilman who's made it clear he favors big businesses over individual citizens or other nations), it won't happen.

If Bush really was concerned with human rights, why not depose the Saudi regime? Last I checked, Saudi Arabia was a pretty nasty place to live. It's almost as if you roll your eyes in the presence of royalty there and they kill you. Why isn't Bush going after them? Because they like to sell us their oil and make their upper class richer.

Jargo
10-08-2002, 03:18 PM
Is that little janitor guy still President? When does his Daddy come forward and say he's taking over and finishing what he started all those years ago? Cuz it's all aboot Bush Snr. Junior has nothing to do but read the cue cards and stumble around in front of cameras looking like a janitor in his sunday best.

Where's wild Bill Clinton? I liked him, he had spunk. This new guy is a clown, hate clowns. BOOOOOO! down with Bush and Bush ltd.
When do you guys get to vote him out? Bet you 2-1 he'll have a war started before then. Bet you 2-1 he'll have a war started by new year.

Blair is Bush's puppet too - That's Bush Snr. Is it requisite to vote complete raving lunatics into power these days? Surely there must be a sane person we can get into a seat of power somewhere?

Exhaust Port
10-08-2002, 03:24 PM
It's very exciting to see all the news on upcoming Zero Emission cars that run on Fuel Cells. Then all we would have to do is provide enough Hydrogen to supply our automobile needs. 100 years from now we'll have Hydrogen mines on the sun to meet our every growing needs. ;)

Jargo
10-08-2002, 03:54 PM
I hear the sun is rather pleasant this time of year, of course you need sunblock factor 9,000.000.000.000.000.000.000 but that's a minor setback to your enjoyment of the resort. The views are stunning I'm told. :)

Non petroleum fuel run cars are a good way to go. We have a growing number of gas powered cars (as in the vapor not the fluid called gas in the US), running on our roads. There are a few gas/petrol stations near me that sell gas for these hyper efficient vehicles. fewer emissions, accelerated mileage per litre, It's just a pity the conversion costs so much when you go green and go gas. But i have it on good authority that the conversion pays for itself in a mere 18 months owing to the money saved on fuel consumption.
There was an experimental bus running somewhere here that used a by product of banana skins for fuel I believe. I haven't heard much about it since it was announced perhaps that experiment failed?
The hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller apparently. recent news said the hole had ceased growing and begun to recede. If we continue to cut emissions and make homes and businesses more energy efficient then it should seal itself again and the ice continents will be saved.

hmmm? what? thread title says what? oh. :zzz:

JediTricks
10-08-2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by derek
. actually in all seriousness, after we liberate iraq, the U.S. government should take over their oil fields and sell the oil to U.S. and foreign oil companies untill we've covered our expences.Didn't Vice President Dick Cheney's company do something similar after Desert Storm? Didn't Cheney's company send tons of money to Iraq to get the oil pumping back then?

QLD
10-08-2002, 06:37 PM
Attack Iraq now.....or attack Iraq later. It is coming, one day or another, I believe.

The questions is, will it come before we lose many civilians lives, or after?

I won't debate facts with anyone, because I don't have all of the facts, nor will I pretend to.

I hope we can avoid it, but I doubt it. I do not believe Saddam is willing to make any concessions, and I believe he is working vigorously to find a way to destroy us, and our people. I prefer to be proactive, than reactive. Many people don't.

Everybody wants proof in this.....proove it....proove it. But there are so many things in life we do without proof of it existing.

In my opinion, if we are wrong, we end up doing something that needs to be done anyway. If we aren't wrong, well, we could avoid another 9/11 or something worse.

Again, I won't say I'm right, or that anyone else is wrong, but that is how I feel.

Nexu
10-08-2002, 06:49 PM
Global warming is complete bull****. A couple weeks ago there was a study released that said the sun contributes to global warming. :rolleyes:
I recommend that anyone who has not seen a John Stossel report on ABC, watch for the next one.

Dar' Argol
10-08-2002, 08:06 PM
I am almost fearful in the direction that Dubbaya wants to take us. Anyone get the feeling that we seem like the big bully on the playground right now??? Not saying that Hussain needs taken out, but does Bush need to insite him publically. I saw get a Black Ops thing together, (You know they exisist), and sent them over nice and quite, take Saddam out really nice and quite like, and then come home. Problem over!! No need to really PO Iraq off to the point that then lauch Chemical Warfare on use or worse, Nucular Warfare. Of course really, I'm not sure which IS worse . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jedi Clint
10-08-2002, 08:26 PM
How many people here that oppose the decision to unseat Saddam under this President, opposed similar measures proposed by Bubba during the controversy over his inability to coordinate his tounge with his zipper?

I will refrain from dropping opinions on the speech until I've read it or watched it.

Old Fossil
10-08-2002, 10:36 PM
Didn't watch the speech. No need to, nothing new was said.

Iraq is a threat? What about any other country in the world that defies us (U.S.)? Say, China? You want a dangerous, aggressive country? China has nuclear capability. China invaded and absorbed Tibet -- a huge, sovereign nation bigger than, say, Texas. China became directly involved in the Korean War, on the North's side, and is still an ally of Pyongyang. China supported the Pol Pot regime that devastated Cambodia in the 1970's. China continually threatens the Nationalist regime in Taiwan, our ally. China's human rights record is as dismal as Iraq's under Hussein. China has the world's largest standing army.

Should we invade China? By Bush's reasoning on Iraq, we should. But we don't. Why? Because attacking China, a sovereign nation, would be suicide. Iraq, while a sovereign nation, is much, much easier to bully. So we (America) will. We will ignore the United Nations, making it into another League of Nations, useless without our support and participation. We will go it alone. We will become as much a 'Rogue State' as Bush and his corporate cronies label Iraq one.

God, America simply must get its collective head out of its collective arse. People have got to stop limiting their news to what they hear on ABC Nightline, or CNN. There's a world of international news coverage going on most Americans, myself included, are blissfully ignorant of. That ignorance colors our perception of the rest of the world, usually in black and white. It makes it easier for the Bush White House to persuade us into accepting idiotic foreign and domestic policy geared only to line the pockets of the rich and powerful.

Sorry for the rant, but I am worried, very, very worried, about my country.

dr_evazan22
10-08-2002, 10:43 PM
Another question is will the vote be taken before or after election day? And will the American public be more concerned w/ the tanking economy then unseating Saddam?

A couple more questions-
- Why did Saddam invade Kuwait in the first place a decade ago?
- Why is Saddam so much more of a threat now than when he was America's friend (when he was waging war on Iran- during and after the Iran/Contra - weapons for hostages controversy)?

I don't like him being in power, but just wait it out and let him die, and let them decide what's going to happen. If we put another puppet there then that will further weaken the US's credibility in that region.

Old Fossil
10-08-2002, 10:57 PM
It was much more convenient to have Saddam as a 'friend' back then. We didn't like him, but hey, we didn't like Pinochet, didn't like Noriega, didn't like Marcos, didn't like half the petty dictators we've supported over the years; but we support 'em when it's in our best interests, regardless of moral and human rights issues. Ah, but we are the mighty, democratic, freedom-loving U.S.A. It's all for the best in the end, ain't it? Long as we can still drive our SUV's and watch cable TV and Instant Message and haunt the Mall and collect toys. Hell, most of the people in the world have never even made a freakin' telephone call...

Ignorance is bliss.

Emperor Howdy
10-09-2002, 12:25 AM
Oh Jesus.......moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch.....:frus:

What's with you guys? Seriously? Are you really that sympathetic to the present Iraqi government? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but.....why? You have no qualms about publicly denouncing the President and the country, but you're the first to weep for Hussein. I should expect it, but still some of you blow my mind. I really can't decipher whether you're extreme democrats that blast Bush regardless of the situation, or naive youngsters that think defying America's foreign policy is the "cool" thing to do, dude. I do not love the idea of war, either. However, I have no problem with taking Hussein out.....quite frankly....I'm excited about it. I was disappointed we didn't back in 91. Yet, our (as well as 39 other countries) objective was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Even in their retreat, they butchered civilians and torched oil facilities, as well as dumped oil into the Persian Gulf. Since then Hussein and his maniac brat kids have proven they are simply evil pieces of shee-at. I don't need to list the atrocities. You already know 'em, and if you don't, investigate a little bit and see for yourself. His regime is loooong overdue. Bush's motivations? Not important to me. Political? Financial? Prevention? Yeah, whatever, just take him out. Thank God I don't run the show, or I'd make Iraq the 51st state....but it doesn't work that way. There are innocent, terrified people in that country to think about. "Taking over" or "Just nuking the damn place" isn't an option. Ooooooh, but disarming, or better yet, removing Saddam? I give my 100% support....and so should you. Yes, China's civil atrocities DO rival Hussein's.....but we're not removing Hussein because of his treatment of his people....that's just a BONUS prize that comes along with it. Yes, China (and many other countries) have nuclear capabilities....it's how they're willing to use it that is the issue. Of course China would launch in a nuclear war, but they don't pose the same "terroristic" use of that technology like Iraq. They might someday, but not now. Yes, we have a teetering economy right now. Not the first time, youngster...we'll do just fine. True, there hasn't been much public discussion about the establishment of a post-Saddam government, but don't be fooled. There are many, many Iraqi groups willing to step in and if nothing more, undo some of the damage done by the present regime. Working with the West will certainly increase stability. Nevertheless, don't get your panties in a wad over your buddy Saddam just yet. The bottom line is: We will wait. We will send inspectors in again. Hussein will promise unlimited passage, then deny access to certain locations (like he ALWAYS does). The U.N. will insist he submits, we will sit twiddling our thumbs. After several weeks or months, we will ask, "Are you happy now?" The U.N. will say, "Whatever...do what you will". We will annihilate Hussein’s regime. Many of us will rejoice. Overlord will find something to complain about. Still not a perfect world. Still not a perfect country. But Saddam is gone. :D Many will still weep for Iraq. I will point at all of them and do a Nelson: Hyaaa-haa!

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-09-2002, 12:29 AM
One major difference between Kosovo and Iraq was that diplomacy was tried before the invasion in 1998-1999. I remember Milosevic was brought to the U.S. during the mid 90's (in Dayton OH) in hopes to negiotate peace between the Serbs and Croats. We also had international backing and UN troops stationed there to help restore order afterwards.

I feel that backing from other nations is critical to our cause. It gives us better justification to attack Saddam. It'll save us money and aid our troops who are all ready overextended throughout the world. Also, it may help save unnecessary American casualties.

If we go through the U.N. (which was created in part to solve problems like these) we are guaranteed of getting a strong resolution calling for Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back in. If he doesn't capitulate, then we have the grounds to carry on this little war. We then would get international support from the countries now that have reservations (like France, Germany). If we do fail to get support from the security council then shame on them. We will have to carry on with the attack alone.

That being said, I question Bush when he says "war is a last resort?"

Why is he so eager now to carry on with this issue when 9/11 happened over a year ago. Why now if Saddam has had these weapons of mass destruction for years? Does an upcoming election and the fact that GOPers lose hands down when it comes to more pressing issues like the economy and health care? Is this war a distraction intended to boost his party knowing full well that they win on issues like terrorism and the Iraq issue?

Does the fact that Saddam tried to order the assassination of his dad mean that he is harboring a grudge against Saddam and that maybe is his true drive to oust him?

What will happen to Iraq once Saddam is ousted? Would it be surprising to expect that his successor would be as ruthless and evil as Saddam? If we do install a pro-US puppet, how stable will that regime be? Will the Iraqi people accept it, or once we leave the area, will they oust the leaders as quick as they can? Will our actions spark further hatred and a call to arms against the U.S. in the already unstable Middle East?

If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction should we consider the fact that he might use them against us, or a foreign neighbor if provoked?

As I type this and watch the debate in our House of Representatives and Senate I am quite surprised that there is not more opposition against this resolution offered by the President. I am surprised that there is only little opposition in the Democratic party. I guess many are thinking of the upcoming elections and they don't want to make this war an issue. Shame on them. I can almost guarantee you that most members are getting more (way more) letters and calls from their constituents saying not to go to war rather than to go.

Also, don't we remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution passed by Congress in 65' that basically was a blank check for LBJ to wage war with Vietnam. A big mistake. Clinton, if I remember correctly, did the same thing with Kosovo. We are basically writing a blank check for GW to do whatever he wants with our troops in Iraq.

I am just frustrated right now, because I do think further avenues could be exhausted before we go to war. I never thought this country could be so eager to start a war.

Emperor Howdy
10-09-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Lowly Bantha Cleaner
As I type this and watch the debate in our House of Representatives and Senate I am quite surprised that there is not more opposition against this resolution offered by the President? I am surprised that there is only little opposition in the Democratic party.

I'm not....the majority of Americans stand behind the President and are ready for Saddam's elimination. I'm more surprised by the lack of support right here on this forum.





Originally posted by Lowly Bantha Cleaner
I can almost guarantee you that most members are getting more (way more) letters and calls from their constituents saying not to go to war rather than to go.

No offense, LBC, but I bet that's not true.

darthvyn
10-09-2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Exhaust Port
It's very exciting to see all the news on upcoming Zero Emission cars that run on Fuel Cells. Then all we would have to do is provide enough Hydrogen to supply our automobile needs. 100 years from now we'll have Hydrogen mines on the sun to meet our every growing needs. ;)

funny you should mention that...

this car is really amazing!

Hy-Wire (http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/paris/preview/gm-hywire/)

Dar' Argol
10-09-2002, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
I'm not....the majority of Americans stand behind the President and are ready for Saddam's elimination. I'm more surprised by the lack of support right here on this forum.


Don't get me wron Howdy, I want Saddam out as well, but I don't think its a good idea to insite WWIII to do it. I heard a report that at the time of the Gulf War, Saddam was 8 yrs away from obtaining a Nucular Weapon. Do the math . . . . .. .

I must admit, I too am a bit frightned with these events.

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-09-2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
I'm not....the majority of Americans stand behind the President and are ready for Saddam's elimination. I'm more surprised by the lack of support right here on this forum.

You are right about that Howdy--but when you factor things as "should we go in it alone, as the president states might happen" the majority is not there.


No offense, LBC, but I bet that's not true. [/B]

I saw an Associated Press picture in the paper over the weekend of some Representative from Illinois holding a stack of letters regarding the war. She had one stack with very few papers and another that probably had 10x more that were constitutents against the war.

My own soon to be Congressman Louise Slaughter stated on the floor today on C-SPAN that she had over 1,000 calls of people opposed to the war and about 15 from people who were for it.

Robert Byrd, the Senator from West Virginia (a Democratic state, but a conservative state I'll argue) said he was innundated with over 9.000 calls of people voicing their concern over the war, over the weekend. He has is the sole reason why the resolution will be bottled up in the Senate this week, despite the fact that it will pass.

Granted there are some districts in where there will probably be more war backers, but I still feel the majority of calls coming in are against.

Another reason government officials might receive more anti-war calls then pro is because people who are anti-war see that unless something drastic will happen, there will be a war in Iraq soon. So they are more willing to voice their concern through calls or a letter as opposed to someone who backs the war, that knows that the passage of the resolution is imminent.

Emperor Howdy
10-09-2002, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Dar' Argol


I heard a report that at the time of the Gulf War, Saddam was 8 yrs away from obtaining a Nucular Weapon. Do the math . . . . ..



EXACTLY. That's the whole point!

I probably should re-clarify something myself: I'm not some sort of war monger.....and I am especially concerned for the lives of each and every American, British, and coalition soldier (and civilian...including Iraqi civilians) if it comes to war (which it will). However, Saddam is a psycho, man. That's that. See ya. Gotta go. Russia doesn't send guys over with briefcases full of chemical weapons to blow up shopping malls full of civilians. China doesn't crash planes into buildings. We don't drop SCUDS on Canada or Mexico because we hate their religion. Yeah, yeah....nobody's perfect.....but Saddam is a freakin' menace. I'm sick of this guy. Even his name pis.ses me off. I'm not saying Iraq will flourish after he's gone, and the Middle East will all hold hands and sing Puff the Magic Dragon, but he needs to go. Yes, terrorist recourse IS a scary possibilty, but nowhere NEAR the threat if we leave this guy alone. He ranks up with class acts like Hitler. Dictatorships blow anyway. That type of governing always spawns a Saddam....always will. There will always be wars. Get used to it......and one more thing: Imagine if some of you guy's mother, father, wife, or kid was having a drink in a coffee shop when it suddenly exploded. Then let's say an Islamic terror group known to be funded by Hussein claims responsibility. Still wanna throw your loving arms around Saddam? Didn't think so. That's the inevitable if we do nothing with countries that support terror. So stop whining like babies and stand behind your President.

Tycho
10-09-2002, 01:47 AM
Do any of you know Saddam Hussein? Do any of you hang out with him on weekends? Trade action figures with him? (I don't think he likes GI Joes...but?)

Do you know him?

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

Do you blindly follow politicians and trust that the majority of presidents we've had run for office because they want to facilitate what's good for US, Americans?

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

I'll stand with the President when he wants to take the fight back to the Taliban and capture and try the men responsible for Sept. 11 - but I stop and think for myself. I question whether the President or his backers pulling his strings were innocent of the tragedy of Sept. 11?

People who gain access to elite offices know more of the facts and are tempted with more power than people who hang out on Star Wars message boards and "know it all."

Have any of you sent a message to George Dubbya and asked him to spend some of his free-time posting here?

Maybe he'll join in our political discussions.

Then, of course, when he does, he'll tell us the truth because he'll be one of us - people who spend their time posting on a Star Wars message board because we know everything about international and domestic-corporate politics.

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

I would put more trust and unfortunately have to put some faith into what a joint panel of CIA and NIS, AI officials have to say after they've come forward with their reconn data. These people might've graduated from the FBI Academy or West Point at one time or another, but there are both Republicans and Democrats who do that. So the men that get to command our intelligence agencies serve at the appointment and pleasure of politicals that appoint them. Don't think that Clinton appointed Republicans to head the agencies when he was in office. Nor is Bush having anything to do with appointees from any ideology that doesn't serve HIM, or his handlers. So, have a panel composed of not just Bush's people, but those from Carter's days, and Clinton's, or possibly recommended by Gore. Put them together like a jury. It will offset any right-wing imbalance there now. Have the panel come to a conclusion and the majority and minority opinions brought before Congress for a formal declaration of war.

If Bush wants it, let him follow this proceedure. If he doesn't, he can go back to sleep while the economy tanks as it has been, as he has been.

Oh, and if you personally know Saddam Hussein, and can medically certify him mentally one way or another, please speak up. Maybe your opinion would matter.

Please disclose whether you own an oil company or a car manufacturer before you speak. Thank you.

2-1B
10-09-2002, 02:17 AM
Tycho, wasn't the current CIA director appointed by Clinton ? :confused:
There's certainly much blame to go around over 9/11, but if it is going to be done along political lines I'm sure the picture will be quite clustered.
My independent opinion, of course. :D

floppy hat jon
10-09-2002, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
What's with you guys? Seriously? Are you really that sympathetic to the present Iraqi government? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but.....why? You have no qualms about publicly denouncing the President and the country, but you're the first to weep for Hussein. I should expect it, but still some of you blow my mind. I really can't decipher whether you're extreme democrats that blast Bush regardless of the situation, or naive youngsters that think defying America's foreign policy is the "cool" thing to do, dude.

Same old thing from people who support this war: there's no way that someone could actually be against this war, after all Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But to think that's the only issue is so absurdly naive. Dissenting on the war is NOT NOT NOT supporting the current Iraqi regime. It's called the Democratic process. If you don't agree with something the government is doing, you speak up about it. What a crazy unpatriotic thing for us to do. I'm so ashamed. I guess in the new Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft America you're not allowed to do that anymore without being accused of sleeping with the enemy. Give me a break. It's such an old argument.


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
I don't need to list the atrocities. You already know 'em, and if you don't, investigate a little bit and see for yourself.

Oh, you mean the atrocities from the '80s when we were fully in support of Iraq? You mean when we gave him the capability of using chemical and biological weapons? You mean when Donald Rumsfeld, then of the Reagan administration, was in Iraq the SAME DAY that they used chemical weapons on Iran in 1984? Funny how we forgot to tell them that was bad back then. It took 18 years to figure out that was wrong. You mean when he "gassed" the Kurds in his own country and we didn't do so much as give him a slap on the wrist? Maybe it's you that should turn off Fox News and do a little investigating yourself.


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Bush's motivations? Not important to me. Political? Financial? Prevention? Yeah, whatever, just take him out.

Long live the empire, dude. You, as a person, are allowed irrational feelings; governments, on the other hand, are not. There has to be a clear danger to the American people; as of now they haven't shown that to be true. No one has shown any evidence that things are any different in Iraq than they have been at any time over the last 11 years. You don't just get to take people out "just because". That's not how a civilized democracy works. You do realize that none of the countries in the region think this is a good idea?


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Of course China would launch in a nuclear war, but they don't pose the same "terroristic" use of that technology like Iraq.

Maybe not to us, but what about Taiwan? If we invade Iraq with no provocation, what's to stop China from taking over Taiwan? This would set a very dangerous precendent.


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
True, there hasn't been much public discussion about the establishment of a post-Saddam government, but don't be fooled. There are many, many Iraqi groups willing to step in and if nothing more, undo some of the damage done by the present regime. Working with the West will certainly increase stability.

You HAVE TO DISCUSS the aftermath before invasion. There are too many groups in Iraq that are going to grapple for power.

So I guess it will become a stable country just like Afghanistan?

The Overlord Returns
10-09-2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Oh Jesus.......moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch.....:frus:

Overlord will find something to complain about. Still not a perfect world. Still not a perfect country. But Saddam is gone. :D Many will still weep for Iraq. I will point at all of them and do a Nelson: Hyaaa-haa!

I find it funny that, of ALL the voices on this board echoing similar notions, you chose to single me out.......is it because you know I'm not american?

The Overlord Returns
10-09-2002, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Oh Jesus.......moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch-moan-b*tch.....:frus:

What's with you guys? Seriously? Are you really that sympathetic to the present Iraqi government? I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but.....why? You have no qualms about publicly denouncing the President and the country, but you're the first to weep for Hussein. I should expect it, but still some of you blow my mind. I really can't decipher whether you're extreme democrats that blast Bush regardless of the situation, or naive youngsters that think defying America's foreign policy is the "cool" thing to do, dude. I do not love the idea of war, either. However, I have no problem with taking Hussein out.....quite frankly....I'm excited about it. I was disappointed we didn't back in 91. Yet, our (as well as 39 other countries) objective was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Even in their retreat, they butchered civilians and torched oil facilities, as well as dumped oil into the Persian Gulf. Since then Hussein and his maniac brat kids have proven they are simply evil pieces of shee-at. I don't need to list the atrocities. You already know 'em, and if you don't, investigate a little bit and see for yourself. His regime is loooong overdue. Bush's motivations? Not important to me. Political? Financial? Prevention? Yeah, whatever, just take him out. Thank God I don't run the show, or I'd make Iraq the 51st state....but it doesn't work that way. There are innocent, terrified people in that country to think about. "Taking over" or "Just nuking the damn place" isn't an option. Ooooooh, but disarming, or better yet, removing Saddam? I give my 100% support....and so should you. Yes, China's civil atrocities DO rival Hussein's.....but we're not removing Hussein because of his treatment of his people....that's just a BONUS prize that comes along with it. Yes, China (and many other countries) have nuclear capabilities....it's how they're willing to use it that is the issue. Of course China would launch in a nuclear war, but they don't pose the same "terroristic" use of that technology like Iraq. They might someday, but not now. Yes, we have a teetering economy right now. Not the first time, youngster...we'll do just fine. True, there hasn't been much public discussion about the establishment of a post-Saddam government, but don't be fooled. There are many, many Iraqi groups willing to step in and if nothing more, undo some of the damage done by the present regime. Working with the West will certainly increase stability. Nevertheless, don't get your panties in a wad over your buddy Saddam just yet. The bottom line is: We will wait. We will send inspectors in again. Hussein will promise unlimited passage, then deny access to certain locations (like he ALWAYS does). The U.N. will insist he submits, we will sit twiddling our thumbs. After several weeks or months, we will ask, "Are you happy now?" The U.N. will say, "Whatever...do what you will". We will annihilate Hussein’s regime. Many of us will rejoice. Overlord will find something to complain about. Still not a perfect world. Still not a perfect country. But Saddam is gone. :D Many will still weep for Iraq. I will point at all of them and do a Nelson: Hyaaa-haa!

To briefly break from all this weeping for hussein that myself and other seem to be doing by voicing or concerns about Bush's war fervour........

1. What we are doing is commonly considered freedom of speech. We can say and question whatever we like when it comes to democratic governments. They are elected by US.....if we have cause for concern over what they are doing, we are allowed to voice such concern.

2. at the end of the gulf war, Bush sr. waqs also spouting regime change and such and such. He was given a multi tiered plan by the British SAS that would see them go in, and take Saddam ougt. Hell of a lot more efficient than a war. Bush said no. Bush jr does not want regime change. He wants war. Look to my info about Iraqi oil for SOME of the reasons why.

3. I give 100% support to the disarming of Iraq. However, IF Hussein already has nuclear weapons, I guarantee you an unprovoked attack from the US WILL make him use them.

4. "Bush's motivations? Not important to me." Thank God most Americans don't seem to view the president with the same sort of blinders you have on. Stop watching CNN and take a look around the international news world, please, for me?

5. Iraqs human rights atrocities are great, but so are Saudi Arabias. Theres also as much evidence that Saudi Arabia may have helped the 9/11 terrorosts as there is that Saddam did. Why is one an ally and one an enemy posing an "immediate" threat to US security?

dr_evazan22
10-09-2002, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by floppy hat jon





Long live the empire, dude. You, as a person, are allowed irrational feelings; governments, on the other hand, are not. There has to be a clear danger to the American people; as of now they haven't shown that to be true. No one has shown any evidence that things are any different in Iraq than they have been at any time over the last 11 years. You don't just get to take people out "just because". That's not how a civilized democracy works. You do realize that none of the countries in the region think this is a good idea?

long live the Empire is right!

I want to make it clear I don't sympathise w/ Saddam, and do feel something should be done about him. But I don't feel that W's methods are the right way to go. The US needs to use the same method of due process w/ the UN and Iraq that we citizens expect from our govt. Give the process a chance to work.
Will Saddam hide weapons from us? Will he limit where the inspectors go? Will the inspectors have free access to interview scientists and such to find out what's going on?
Yes, Yes, and No.

Assuming the weapons inspections continue as they did in the 90's, THEN we go back to the UN. We give the UN the oppurtunity to step up to the plate and fulfill thier obligations as set forth in the Resolutions. If and when the UN fails to fulfill their obligations, then I have no problem going it alone.

My main problem w/ W is that he keeps claiming that there is so much concrete proof that we have, yet it's not being shared.

He's trying to get me, and the country to act w/ passion, when something like this should never be done w/ passion. It should be methodical, calculated and deliberate.

He's trying to manipulate me, and I don't like that. Palin and simple.

Nexu
10-09-2002, 03:43 PM
There is a reason why China is referred to as the sleeping dragon. Wake it up, and there'll be Hell to pay. My two cents.

Old Fossil
10-09-2002, 06:28 PM
My point is that both Iraq and China are sovereign nations, neither of which has directly threatened the United States. We simply make war on Iraq because we CAN. Then again, if we do, we might just wake a sleeping dragon, in a sense; the Arab world might, for once, unite to defend itself against a rogue United States.

Might does not make right. I despise Saddam and his regime, but the U.S. must act through the United Nations to bring about democratic change in Iraq; if the U.N. cannot, then we should act as part of an international coalition, not alone. War should be the last resort. As of right now, it is not.

Emperor Howdy
10-10-2002, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Tycho
Do any of you know Saddam Hussein? Do any of you hang out with him on weekends? Trade action figures with him? [/I]

As a matter of fact, Mister Smartypants, he stiffed me for cost and shipping on an R2-Q5 about a year ago. Not that it’s that big a de....heeey....wait a minute! :mad: ....that was Wolfwood319! :p

Tycho, I also didn’t know Jeffery Dalmer personally. Poor ‘ol scapegoat...I should’ve known people were sticking their own heads in freezers!



Originally posted by floppy hat jon
Same old thing from people who support this war: there's no way that someone could actually be against this war, after all Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. But to think that's the only issue is so absurdly naive. Dissenting on the war is NOT NOT NOT supporting the current Iraqi regime. It's called the Democratic process. If you don't agree with something the government is doing, you speak up about it. What a crazy unpatriotic thing for us to do. I'm so ashamed. I guess in the new Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft America you're not allowed to do that anymore without being accused of sleeping with the enemy. Give me a break. It's such an old argument.


F.H.J., when did I say “Saddam being evil” was the only issue for conflict!? I just didn’t feel like listing a thousand reasons on this forum. Besides, I don’t need to. I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to come up with your own. Oh, and by ALL MEANS debate away! Democratic process your heart out! That’s what this is for.

I am curious about something, though. Many people have bent over backwards putting down Bush in the previous posts. Great. No problem. I’d feel the same way if that imbecile Gore was in office. I suppose what I’m asking is: What are some of your specific reasons for not disarming or removing Hussein right now? I don’t want to hear, “Because Bush sucks”. Tell me some of your meaningful concerns. For example, Dar Argol said he was concerned about terrorist recourse in the States. Stuff like that.



Originally posted by floppy hat jon
Oh, you mean the atrocities from the '80s when we were fully in support of Iraq? You mean when we gave him the capability of using chemical and biological weapons? You mean when Donald Rumsfeld, then of the Reagan administration, was in Iraq the SAME DAY that they used chemical weapons on Iran in 1984? Funny how we forgot to tell them that was bad back then. It took 18 years to figure out that was wrong. You mean when he "gassed" the Kurds in his own country and we didn't do so much as give him a slap on the wrist? Maybe it's you that should turn off Fox News and do a little investigating yourself.

With all due respect, man, give me a break! :rolleyes: I was well into my teens when we were in the sack with Saddam. I remember it well firsthand. Most of the guys here were still sucking on their momma’s [EDITED], so spare me the “Fox news” bit. I’ve always kept up on foreign affairs and don’t derive opinions from watching a paranoid, “worst-case scenario” television media. We all know the U.S. was je****g off Hussein when our focus was on Iran. Yep…different time….different circumstances. Things change. Countries use other countries. That’s the way the sh***y system works. Truthfully, I wouldn’t be surprised if we DID mail a bacteria or two to ‘em (even though Rumsfeld denies it as expected). I’m sure when the Dept. of Defense/Commerce responds, they’ll deny it too. So...sorry bro...I have no proof that they didn’t, you have none that they did. But again, how does that factor in with what should be done about Hussein NOW? What do you recommend we do?



Originally posted by floppy hat jon
Long live the empire, dude. You, as a person, are allowed irrational feelings; governments, on the other hand, are not. There has to be a clear danger to the American people; as of now they haven't shown that to be true. No one has shown any evidence that things are any different in Iraq than they have been at any time over the last 11 years. You don't just get to take people out "just because". That's not how a civilized democracy works. You do realize that none of the countries in the region think this is a good idea?

I’m assuming you were joking when you said we’d be taking Saddam out “just because”, F.H.J. So tell me then, what do you consider a provoked attack? (Aside from that little building incident a year ago). 9/11=Osama=al-Qaida=Ansar=Iraq=Good enough for me. (Oops, my bad. I forgot 9/11 has been demoted to "just a crutch for Bush and his war-monger supporters".)



Originally posted by floppy hat jon
Maybe not to us, but what about Taiwan? If we invade Iraq with no provocation, what's to stop China from taking over Taiwan?

What’s to stop ‘em? Negative international response accompanied by full U.N. coalition support. China would be spanked like little girls.



Originally posted by floppy hat jon
You HAVE TO DISCUSS the aftermath before invasion. There are too many groups in Iraq that are going to grapple for power.

I said “publicly” discussed. I’m sure the Pentagon is fully aware of which “seemingly more democratic” group they’d prefer to move in after Saddam, and are in contact with them already. I’m sure we’ve also promised military and financial support to boot. For obvious reasons, that group has not been “publicly” identified. We’re not going to just wipe out the present regime then flip a coin.


Originally posted by The Overlord Returns


I find it funny that, of ALL the voices on this board echoing similar notions, you chose to single me out.......is it because you know I'm not american?

No. Because you’re Canadian. :happy:



Originally posted by The Overlord Returns
4. "Bush's motivations? Not important to me." Thank God most Americans don't seem to view the president with the same sort of blinders you have on. Stop watching CNN and take a look around the international news world, please, for me?

How many times do I need to clarify this isn’t a “Bush thing” with me? I could care a less who the President was. No President, administration, media, or public opinion poll makes my decisions about Iraq. I do. So I’ll ask you the same thing (oh, sorry man, you’ll need to jump off the Anti-Bush train for a minute or two….I know that hurts ;) ): What are your real concerns about disarming or altogether removing Hussein now, in the near future (or after he spits in the face of the resolution once again), and what do you recommend should be done? What do you consider a provoked response? Why is removing Saddam, then lifting sanctions on Iraq problematic? Do you need a “smoking gun”? (Sorry, I just had to quote your buddy :D ). Try answering some of these questions without using Bush’s name………please, for me?


Mod Note: Howdey, watch the word spelling here. Getting around the Auto-Censor is not aloowed
DA

QLD
10-10-2002, 01:53 AM
Apparantly, more and more people think we have to lose several thousand lives before we should act out in any manner :rolleyes:

Emperor Howdy
10-10-2002, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Apparantly, more and more people think we have to lose several thousand lives before we should act out in any manner :rolleyes:

Amen, Q.L.D.

Tycho
10-10-2002, 03:35 AM
Emperor Howdy:

I'm not solidly against forcibly disarming Iraq. I don't have enough information to debate the issue. That's the main problem.

I really do think for myself. I think so much that I don't always believe the newspapers, I don't always believe the TV News channels, I certainly don't believe most politicians, and I don't even believe the Bible.

I believe I make important decisions when I have all the facts that I can get. I don't get swept away in passion very easily at all.

A lot of people hate a cynic like me. Go on. Attack me for it. This thread is starting to sound like it's headed to the personal attack levels in some ways, and I don't want it to get closed down. We need these forums to discuss controversial stuff.

Back to the issue, countries all over Africa are killing each other. If we are going to play international police, I could draw up a list. I think we should invade Zimbabwe and protect the white farmers who's land is being confiscated and given over to blacks that loyally serve the dictator. It's not equally distributed amongst even all blacks - it's dependant on their political loyalties. Next, I think we should invade ALL of South America and stop the Columbian drug cartels. They're in Peru, Venezuela, everwhere else, too. They could poison our cocaine and mess with our marajuna and jack up most of our nation's "most promising" youth. The threat to our 25% of our oil imports surely is as dangerous as the threat to xx% of our cocaine? Right?

But wait a minute, people in the energy / oil cartels are running our country. Perhaps if we elect leaders of our drug cartels, we would be invading Columbia.

I do think that retaliation is a valid concern. We could live in a perpetual state of fear from terrorism as other Islamic countries or the "non-affiliated" they harbor, strike back at us.

Palpatine orders Dooku, right? He creates the Separatists that he must then retain to fight against so that he keeps emergency powers. Some people around here are going to be so mystified when they learn that PALPATINE CREATES THE REBEL ALLIANCE! 'duh! It's so obvious that the irony in this just begs for it. Bail Organa is an ally. Of course he organizes it. He was in on it! What he realizes too late is that he helped Palpatine create the Empire - just like all the other characters do. Then he's secretly manipulated into helping aide the Rebels (originally the Separatists) so that Palpatine can keep an eye on them. You keep your friends close at hand, and your enemies even closer. An old proverb explaining you want to always know exactly what they are doing. Something Organa does gets out of hand, and the Death Star is ordered to Alderaan. Or he's simply outlived his usefulness, and Palpatine is annoyed with his insolence. We'll find out.

But to not suspect that those who have oil interests, arms business interests, etc. wouldn't arrange this whole thing - even September 11 and a very suspect election - to get their way and then retain power as the war time political leadership, is utterly being naive and unopen to the idea of self-examination of ones own beliefs.

2-1B
10-10-2002, 04:07 AM
Please keep potential spoilers out of gen disc. :)

floppy hat jon
10-10-2002, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
I suppose what I’m asking is: What are some of your specific reasons for not disarming or removing Hussein right now? I don’t want to hear, “Because Bush sucks”. Tell me some of your meaningful concerns.

Let's see ...
1. Ignoring UN resolutions is the jurisdiction of the UN, not the US, hence the name UN resolutions. Should we go it alone we essentially give the other members of the UN security council the green light to do the same to regimes they want changed. Israel ignores UN resolutions daily in their occupation of Palestinian territory in the West Bank and they HAVE (not might) nuclear weapons. Sorry, I forgot they're the "good guys".

2. The CIA issued a report 2 days ago saying that it's unlikely Iraq poses a terrorist threat currently, but might be provoked into such an attack if we invade. They also said that the attack on Afghanistan didn't decrease the threat of Al-Qaeda. Masters of the obvious.

3. We need to get in there and find out exactly what, if any, weapons they do possess. Everything up to this point is all conjecture. War should not be the result of if's, maybe's, and possibly's.

The question being asked is why Iraq and why now? What has really changed? Why do they pose a greater threat than countries with ACTIVE Al-Qaeda cells? All assertions of a real link between Baghdad and Bin Laden have all been speculation up to this point. When I say speculation, what I really mean is fabrication. But if I say that you'll call me a conspiracy theorist. Why have we forgotten about Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? Instead of spending all our time trying to find the link, why not go after groups that we already know about? There are dozens.


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
Truthfully, I wouldn’t be surprised if we DID mail a bacteria or two to ‘em (even though Rumsfeld denies it as expected). I’m sure when the Dept. of Defense/Commerce responds, they’ll deny it too. So...sorry bro...I have no proof that they didn’t, you have none that they did. But again, how does that factor in with what should be done about Hussein NOW? What do you recommend we do?

What we do depends on why we're doing it. If we really think he's a threat (which I don't), then we get in there and disarm him. War should always be a last resort. Iraq has invited us in to inspect the sites we suspect of having weapons. So if we really think they have them, let's call their bluff.

If we're concerned about liberating the Iraqi people, which I assume we're not, then it's a different situation altogether.


Originally posted by Emperor Howdy
I’m assuming you were joking when you said we’d be taking Saddam out “just because”, F.H.J. So tell me then, what do you consider a provoked attack? (Aside from that little building incident a year ago). 9/11=Osama=al-Qaida=Ansar=Iraq=Good enough for me. (Oops, my bad. I forgot 9/11 has been demoted to "just a crutch for Bush and his war-monger supporters".)

You're talking about other people spouting off what they read on the news? You might as well be the White House spokeman. I'm insulted that Bush uses September 11th as a justification for an attack on Iraq because Iraq wasn't involved. No Iraqi hijackers, no Iraqi money, nothing. September 11th was horrible, but let's not lose focus. It doesn't give you the right to attack everyone who MIGHT, but probably WON'T attack you.

Anyone can go to war, it takes a leader to find another solution.

P.S. I never watch Fox News or CNN. There are lots of news sources out there that actually provide news. There are also things we call books that contain information.

If you really believe that we had nothing to do with Iraq's chemical weapons program, you're more delusional than I thought. Next you'll tell me that Reagan really didn't know we were providing weapons to Iran.

floppy hat jon
10-10-2002, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Apparantly, more and more people think we have to lose several thousand lives before we should act out in any manner :rolleyes:

Apparently some people are blinded by fear and don't understand that we're attacking a country that wasn't involved in the events of September 11th. Congratulations, you've been manipulated by the Bush adminstration.

dr_evazan22
10-10-2002, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Caesar
Please keep potential spoilers out of gen disc. :)

Amen to that!:)

QLD
10-10-2002, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by floppy hat jon


Apparently some people are blinded by fear and don't understand that we're attacking a country that wasn't involved in the events of September 11th. Congratulations, you've been manipulated by the Bush adminstration.

Congratulations, you've been manipulated by the Democratic party who is so desperate to gain power that they are playing political games with our lives.

Not saying my statement is 100% correct, but it's just as right as yours.

Exhaust Port
10-10-2002, 09:30 AM
After everyone is done blaming each of the political parties for our actions/inactions don't forget to blame the Jews and Gays for the attacks on 9/11. Seriously folks, the politicians are spending more time assigning blame than trying to fix the problem. They've also got their constituants joining in the meaningless fight.

As soon as anything happens each side, the politicians and their supporters, want to be able to tell the other side "I TOLD YOU SO." Well great, that solves nothing and only creates more bad blood.

I think that there are valid points on both sides that should be addressed but thanks to politicians more concerned about upcoming re-elections no one is willing to compromise.

floppy hat jon
10-10-2002, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Congratulations, you've been manipulated by the Democratic party who is so desperate to gain power that they are playing political games with our lives.

First of all, I'm a registered independent. Second, the only thing I've seen from the democrats in congress is rolling over and not voicing any dissent whatsoever (save for WV's Byrd). Even the ones who disagree with the resolution are signing it because they're afraid of getting voted out in a month. I'm not even sure what you're referring to since the democrats are spineless as far as I can tell. The republicans at least stand for something, albeit often things I disagree with. The democrats seem to stand for nothing at all right now.

Just because September 11th happened doesn't mean no one gets to voice any differences of opinion in congress. If the White House isn't providing evidence to congress that there's an imminent threat, then why should they approve of Bush's resolution? It's not playing games with your life, it's called democracy. You know, where you discuss issues and then vote on them. Not just bully something through because the president says so.

The Overlord Returns
10-10-2002, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy







I said “publicly” discussed. I’m sure the Pentagon is fully aware of which “seemingly more democratic” group they’d prefer to move in after Saddam, and are in contact with them already. I’m sure we’ve also promised military and financial support to boot. For obvious reasons, that group has not been “publicly” identified. We’re not going to just wipe out the present regime then flip a coin.



No. Because you’re Canadian. :happy:




How many times do I need to clarify this isn’t a “Bush thing” with me? I could care a less who the President was. No President, administration, media, or public opinion poll makes my decisions about Iraq. I do. So I’ll ask you the same thing (oh, sorry man, you’ll need to jump off the Anti-Bush train for a minute or two….I know that hurts ;) ): What are your real concerns about disarming or altogether removing Hussein now, in the near future (or after he spits in the face of the resolution once again), and what do you recommend should be done? What do you consider a provoked response? Why is removing Saddam, then lifting sanctions on Iraq problematic? Do you need a “smoking gun”? (Sorry, I just had to quote your buddy :D ). Try answering some of these questions without using Bush’s name………please, for me?

That is very true. Washington has handpicked it's replacement regime for Iraq. The men that have promised to overturn all Husseing oil contracts with european and asian countries, and then turn and award american firms these oil contracts. Believe it, America definitely has a plan;)

As for the question you've posed to me, I am all for Iraqs disarmament. I have no desire to see them gain nuclear technology (if they don't already have it). I am not going to support a war with Iraq until it is absolutely necessary, and currently the american government has not shown it to be necessary. The UN is working toward getting inspectors back in, and Iraq seems to be moving toward giving these inspectors free reign. You HAVE to give them the chance to do it the peaceful way.

I also do NOT believe the Republican government's justifications for rolling ahead with war. There is NO evidence linking Hussein to Bin laden. There is NO evidence pointing toward Iraqi involvement in the events of sept. 11, yet it continues to be used as a point for invasion. It's jingoist propaganda used in an attempt to rally americans behind a war without them "thinking" too much about why....

There is also no evidence that the US is in any danger from Iraq. Not even circumstantial! BUt, I can guarantee you, if an invasion occurs and Saddam does have nuclear weapons, he will use them against you. He will have no reason NOT to.

There ya go....didn't use Bush's name once;)

The Overlord Returns
10-10-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Apparantly, more and more people think we have to lose several thousand lives before we should act out in any manner :rolleyes:

Where is the imminent Iraqi threat that would result in America losing thousands of lives?

QLD
10-10-2002, 12:39 PM
Probably in the middle of a cafe in Los Angeles right now.....

The Overlord Returns
10-10-2002, 12:49 PM
That's hardly an airtight argument.

QLD
10-10-2002, 01:06 PM
No, you're right, it isn't.

But then again, I haven't even tried to pretend that I know all of the facts. I don't. Hell, nobody does. I will express my opinion on it, but anyone trying to prove the other wrong, is, well....pointless. None of us "truly" know what is going on.

I don't feel the way I do because I am a democrat. I don't feel the way I do because I am a republican. Hell, I don't trust any politician. I believe all of them are playing political games, because that is what they do. But to accuse one side of doing it, and not the other, is ridiculous.

But.....I doubt anyone would argue that Saddam would like to destory the US right? And if given an opporunity to make a unprovoked strike against us, that would cause sever damage, that he would right?

Most people agree on that.....

Taking into consideration that.....

I feel that whether he is 50 years, or 50 minutes away from getting the ability to do just that.......that it is our leaders JOB to make sure that doesn't happen.

I personally don't like the idea of waiting to get punched before I can punch back. If I know that someone is going to punch me, than I am going to try to do whatever I can to prevent that from happening.

Now I am not saying I am right, but that is how I feel. I believe the consequences would be much greater if we took NO action, than if we took preventative action. If you don't agree, then please, make your voice heard, because that is what our country is all about.

But I am sick of both sides shouting proove it, when neither can.

The Overlord Returns
10-10-2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong

But.....I doubt anyone would argue that Saddam would like to destory the US right? And if given an opporunity to make a unprovoked strike against us, that would cause sever damage, that he would right?

Most people agree on that.....


.


I don't agree. I do not see Saddam Hussein, petty dictator, launching an unprovoked attack on the US. He gains nothing, and loses everything he currently has. That's not the way petty dictators work. I DO see Saddam Hussein, petty dictator, launching a nuclear missile right at the US if he is invaded. That would be revenge in his eyes.

But a completely unprovoked assault.......I just don;t seeit coming from such a small man so intent on holding what power he currently has.

Tycho
10-10-2002, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by The Overlord Returns



I don't agree. I do not see Saddam Hussein, petty dictator, launching an unprovoked attack on the US. He gains nothing, and loses everything he currently has. That's not the way petty dictators work. I DO see Saddam Hussein, petty dictator, launching a nuclear missile right at the US if he is invaded. That would be revenge in his eyes.

But a completely unprovoked assault.......I just don;t seeit coming from such a small man so intent on holding what power he currently has.

Very well put. Thank you.

The arguments put forth here actually illustrate a danger of democracy: that political games being played here will cost the lives of American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and possibly American civilians if a revenge strike is allowed to happen - and they'd launch before their missle silos or mobile launch vehicles were captured.

I'm just dreaming, but you know what: a good president would use an executive order to postpone elections: all Congressional elections will be postponed beyond Nov. 5, for one year, so as to not politicize this vote. Then our nations' leaders will make an objective vote - which no one will remember a year from now while we're dealing with this new election, provided the decision to go to war or not, was proven right or wrong, as we'd likely have achieved results or gotten Bush to back down by then.

Like I said, I'm just dreaming and through a failing in democracy, but one that's par for the course, our country could make a very bad decision in the next few hours.

QLD
10-10-2002, 03:11 PM
The house passed the Iraq resolution today, 296 to 133.

I don't think we will have a war, not yet anyway. I think Georgie is creating all this hoopla so that he can put pressure on Saddam to do what we want. But if he doesn't, then they will force the issue, and I don't think that would be a bad idea either.

The Overlord Returns
10-10-2002, 03:13 PM
Does someone have a detailed summary of the resolution?

derek
10-10-2002, 04:05 PM
all Congressional elections will be postponed beyond Nov. 5, for one year, so as to not politicize this vote. Then our nations' leaders will make an objective vote

this is a bad idea.:) the problem here is not that the republicans are playing politics with this, the problem is that the democrats, led by dick gephardt, are cowards who are afraid to say what they really think. only democrats are complaining about the "iraq debate" being political. everything they(both parties) do is political. the democrats are simply cowards in this instance, who are afraid to speak their mind out of fear they will not be re-elected.

keep in mind, these same democrats who accuse bush of playinjg politics with the looming war are some of the most mean, lying, lowdown people in this country. these are people who accuse republicans of wanting to starve, kill, and poision children and the elderly on a regular basis when it suits their re-election campaigns.

Tycho
10-10-2002, 04:55 PM
I won't disagree with you on your claim that some Democrats don't have the backbone to stand up and speak and vote according to how they believe and instead just voted for this resolution for their own re-election, however:

all politicians who take contributions are like prostitutes.

Somebody doesn't want their company to spend money, lose profits, by:

-following environmental regulations so they don't mess things up for the rest of us.

- hiring union labor so they can't just fire workers that become pregnant, ill, have an accident, or need to take care of a child or family member (whereby they can't afford their rent, everything else because they practiced family values)

Somebody doesn't want their company to have to spend billions in R & D to make cars that run on solar energy and water, because their garages service cars that have more working parts than battery operated ones would.

Somebody doesn't want their wealth to start depleting because their income dries up since we wouldn't be dependent on them to generate energy or sell their oil.

AND SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO BE A CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR - OR PRESIDENT.

So they prostitute themselves: I'll ease your restrictions, I'll give you government contracts, I'll let you use your money to get what you want, you get me into office, or you hire me as a consultant to your company, or an executive, after my term of office is over with.

However, they still need to get elected first. How do they get the votes? They promise churches tax shelters for non-profits they want to operate which convert people to their religions. They promise school choice vouchers provided by the government so parents can send their kids to private (pretty much always) religious schools that teach singular belief and value systems. The church says abortion is wrong. Get behind the Christian Coalition and protect our family values. Support a Republican today. God is with them. (I edited some very angry things I posted after this that shows how religion baits the masses).

Now the lucky ***** gets elected to office and gives you his family agenda:

polluted waters for our children to play in (see Mission Beach, California)

Wal*mart - great prices for the entire family - unaffordable to families with single-parents and sole incomes generated from working at Wal*Mart in the first place. -Oh, let alone affording medical care for sickness caused by pollution's effects in the water, or in food we eat, digested from sick plants and animals we harvest.

And families lose time together because mass transit is not properly organized or fun frequently enough, while automobiles become extremely expensive for the single-mother, single wage earning family to afford gas, insurance, and repairs for - let alone a vehicle to use to take their child to medical care or safe recreational facilities when they have time to spend with their children.

But the church tells them to keep on having children - they aren't mistakes for those who have accidents trying to steal a few moments pleasure in life - but forbidden detailed information about birth control through their public schools - and especially their private ones. But they must be Christian and vote against abortion-weilding Democrats who are the opposite of Republicans who never restrict people's rights to make their own private choices, of course:rolleyes:

Let people have guns, the gun lobby elects the prostitutes! Guns don't kill people: abortionists do. Shoot those doctors. They aren't people anyway. Right?

Yeah. Vote Republican. They stand for something. You are a moral person if you stand for what they do. Why? A CHURCH says you are. God is with you! God wants to protect your family. He wants you to have a gun and a job at Wal*Mart.

And Republicans never poison your children by loosening EPA and FDA regulations.

Republicans never starve your children by cutting off AFDC funds cold-heartedly, without further discussing how to revamp the welfare system.

Republicans never would dream of balancing the budget by cutting aid to the energy and arms industries (like with wars in Iraq) instead of taking the money out of the tummies of American children (they can't vote anyway, plus most poor people don't).

And Republicans would never kill your children by allowing guns to fall into the hands of other children or the wrong kinds of "adults" without proper laws and punishments in place (and I support the right to own personal fire arms myself - I'd reform the NRA some more, not abolish it, btw)

So therefore everything must be the Democrats fault!

Seriously, I emplore you to listen to the individuals that are running for election in your area, and decide for yourself if what policies they are supporting are rhetoric, or scienfically based programs that can be measured, tested, and proven. Do the people that benefit from their platform follow up as being the people that are SUPPOSED to benefit from it? Who else benefits from this or that guy getting elected? Is that better or worse than the good that could come out of it. Finally, will this person's party affiliation destroy any chance of them voting independently on what's right for your community? It that answer mean things would be better or worse for you?

Now make your choice. You could end up voting for someone you might not have otherwise considered.

I've voted for different candidates from both parties myself. But I've analyzed and thought things out for myself as well.

QLD
10-10-2002, 05:27 PM
Yes...republicans are evil....BOOO HISSSSSS!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

I wish they would abolish political parties all together. I get so sick of people blindly following whatever their "party" does. How about make every man run for office based off of their own merits, instead of thei party's ability to invent policy and raise funds. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that thinks republicans are mean and evil, and that democrats aren't. And I have the same problem with people who think democrats are evil, and republicans aren't.

Yes, I usually end up voting republican, but not because they ARE republican. :rolleyes:

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-10-2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Quite-Long Dong
Yes, I usually end up voting republican, but not because they ARE republican. :rolleyes:

During the last couple of elections, I have been voting for many third party candidates including for Governor of NY in 98' (my first eligible year-- I voted for Grandpa Al Lewis) and for President in 2000. This year it looks like I'll be voting for a couple more including Tom Golisano, an Independent candidate for NY's governorship. Some may argue that I am throwing my vote away, but I am very frustrated with the powers that be right now. The former candidates were two lefties but the latter is a righty. The common bond that they hold are the fact that all three are reform-minded non-keep-the-status-quo we need change type of candidates.

I am disappointed that Jesse Ventura is not seeking another term for Governor of Minnesota. It must be pretty hard to govern when you have to deal with dissent from both parties statewide.

Emperor Howdy
10-11-2002, 03:01 AM
Actually, derek, I think Gephardt backs the resolution. His big deal is that we're putting homeland defense on the back-burner. Honestly, I agree with him. When we take Iraq, we better make sure our defense systems and intelligence agencies are operating in total harmony or we're sure to see that L.A. cafe bomb Q.L.D. was talking about. :(

Anyway, I was very pleased to see the resolution passed today. I truly hope we don't need to use it, either. While a slim chance at best, I hope the passing of the resolution gives some b*lls to groups in Iraq that will take out Hussein for us. Nevertheless, we'll see what happens. Critics here seem to think we're just going to rush into Iraq tomorrow...guns blazing...destroying everything in our path except the oh-so-important oil facilites. I'm very confident we will wait for Saddam to either comply or drop the ball with U.N. inspectors. As a matter of fact, if the President engages Iraq before another chance for inspections takes place, I give you my word that I will publicly apologize right here on this forum for my faith in the current administration, AND videotape myself running nude down I-20 during rush hour. The U.S. doesn't want to take Hussein without U.N. agreement, we're just saying we will when the time comes, like it or not. Let's wait and see.

Overlord, I'd say Osama could've been considered "petty" too. We see what happens when we shrug off these guys. They consider their actions "self-defense". That's pretty scary. Have you ever seen the interview with him after 9/11?

Osama (http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm)

They hate our government and hate us because we elect these officials. That's not reasonable logic. These people always play "the victim" of the Big Bad Bully America. I'm tired of that s***. I don't care what you say, we really ARE the good guys.....and someone has to step up to the plate from time to time and keep things in order. Well...WE decided to....and we will again with Iraq.

I worry about the decisions we make like anyone else. Yet, I think this is a wise one (especially the disarming aspect), and hopefully will be executed for the right reasons in my mind, regardless of what Bush says his reasons are.


Republicans never would dream of balancing the budget by cutting aid to the energy and arms industries (like with wars in Iraq) instead of taking the money out of the tummies of American children (they can't vote anyway, plus most poor people don't).

I'll tell you this, Tycho: I'd much rather my tax dollars go towards a box of grenades than in the pocket of some useless slob who dropped out of school when her country offered an education, didn't show up for her job when her city gave her one, and squirts out kids like rabbits for boosts in her welfare checks. Yeah, you bet it needs reform! :mad: Sure, there are good people who need it......but a lot more who take it as a free ride. Moving in their Lexus-driving, crack-dealer boyfriends who buy $2,000 sound systems for the apartment, all while Section 8 pays the rent, and momma collects the food stamps. One of my clients is an apartment complex, and I literally see it everytime we're there. Lazy men and women, drinking malt liquor at 11 o'clock in the morning, watching me bust my butt working, then asking me for a cigarette when I walk by. I absolutely LOVE it when they ask me that. I'll say, "Nah, man, I don't smoke", and have a cigarette hanging out of my mouth. 9 times outta 10 I'll get some mumbled rhetoric, as if I'M the jerk. Please. "Gimme...gimme...gimme"....it's the Democratic Way. Get a job, loser. Can't find one because of the damn Rebulicans? I see. Well then employ your damn self like I did. Spend $70 dollars on a push-mower and haul it around in a beat up pick-up truck like I did. Work your tail off 7 days a week for six years like I did (and do). Make your company grow like I did. A few years ago I had nothing. I'll make over $70,000 this year. No one gave me or gives me squat. I pay EVERYTHING.....car and medical insurance, truck and equipment payments, full-time employees, gas, food, rent, the freakin' list goes on and on. I paid over $2,100 in taxes last year (not including self-employment tax) so you can watch me work and hit me up for cigarettes?!?! Screw you, buddy....I'd rather buy the Army a tank.

2-1B
10-11-2002, 03:38 AM
Howdy, I'm sure an apology will be just fine - no need for that I-20 streak run ! :eek:

Someone brought up WV's Byrd - is that guy really a former KKKlansman ? If so, did he voice his dissent while burning a cross on the floors of Congress ?
(this question is posed mainly to derek, I heard Savage ranting about it :D but anyone else is free to chime in :D )

The Overlord Returns
10-11-2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Emperor Howdy

Overlord, I'd say Osama could've been considered "petty" too. We see what happens when we shrug off these guys. They consider their actions "self-defense". That's pretty scary. Have you ever seen the interview with him after 9/11?

Osama (http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm)

They hate our government and hate us because we elect these officials. That's not reasonable logic. These people always play "the victim" of the Big Bad Bully America. I'm tired of that s***. I don't care what you say, we really ARE the good guys.....and someone has to step up to the plate from time to time and keep things in order. Well...WE decided to....and we will again with Iraq.

I worry about the decisions we make like anyone else. Yet, I think this is a wise one (especially the disarming aspect), and hopefully will be executed for the right reasons in my mind, regardless of what Bush says his reasons are.



[/B]

The major difference is that Hussein IS a dictator. He has his power, and he's not going to throw it away in a ridiculous assault on the mightiest nation in the world. Bi Laden is a terrorist. He has no nation to sit at the helm of, and, even scarier, he sees himself doing "gods" work. THIS is the man who will continue to attack the US, and should be the focus of an international manhunt. I just can't help but think that this "war" on Iraq is a distraction from the fact that they CAN'T find Bin Laden.....

on a happier note....it's nice to see that you and I can discuss ....without being at each others throats;)

derek
10-11-2002, 09:21 AM
Actually, derek, I think Gephardt backs the resolution

he was only for it after the poll numbers came out in favor of the president's iraq resolution. if he, and others(daschel, h. clinton) thought he could get away with it, they would be against it.


WV's Byrd - is that guy really a former KKKlansman

yes, caesar, it's very true. and to top that off, gore's dad voted against the civil rights legislation for blacks. go figure.:confused:

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
10-11-2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by derek
yes, caesar, it's very true. and to top that off, gore's dad voted against the civil rights legislation for blacks. go figure.:confused:

Yes, that is true about Robert Byrd. He was a former Grand Wizard of the KKK. But he has since renounced his ways. Whether that is true or not, is up for debate. It is awfully hard for someone to renounce something as prominent of that in the past.

As far as Gore's father is concerned, he did vote against Civil Rights. So did many Southern Senators who were Democrats. But many people point to Civil Rights--particulary the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as the impetus for the modern Republican party's inroads in the south.

It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic party that proposed, worked, and carried out those two critical Civil Right bills. This upset many Southern Democrats. They saw the Democratic party as "selling them out." Johnson said himself as he signed the bill "We've (the Democrats) just handed a whole generation of the Republican party over to the South.

Also, Barry Goldwater of AZ, a Republican, who was against those measures too, played to the sympathies of many of those Southern Dems bringing many of them to his causes and eventually into his GOP party.