[Ulundel]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Well, great. I'm dead, but at least so is the US. That's a compromise I can live with.

I admire your optimism you know

[Knight Templar]

Hold on, I thought that REM did The End of the World as We Know It?

me too.

i personally can't wait to see who the US "ties into " osama next. "Nazi" Germany perhaps... always loveable France ... Communist China.. the possibilities are endless

[vyper]

End of the world my arse - this is just another unpleasant episode, like the world has eaten  a bad curry or something.... uh I don't care anymore..... *goes to bed*

[heretic]

this was posted on another forum, but I felt it'd be good here.

Originally posted by MobileAl98gt
i have read with interest here, and in other forums and media, the liberal opposition to Bush's plans for Iraq, the war on terrorism, etc.  I have seen the same arguement over and over, as I am sure most of you have as well, so I won't regurgitate it here, but I do have some fundamental questions that I would appreciate answered:

1. people say Bush should do more for our economy than go to war with Iraq.
This I am really curious about.  How does one man just magically cure our stock market, our unemployment rate, etc.  A president does not a strong economy make.  The rise of the market during the Clinton era was due to the explosion of the internet, and the even bigger bang of whatever.com, that most failed miserably.  All these venture capitalist pouring money into any sort of dot com they could find.  Now, despite Gore's claim he invented the internet, this wasn't a result of Clinton's leadership, or lack thereof (sorry Clinton lovers, I just had to put that in there ).  Another large contributor to the stock market rise was the incredible growth in computer sales to the home user.  Every tom, harry, and bob could access the stock market via e-trade, or similar company, and buy stock, or sell it as the case may be.  Everyone buying intel, aol, or whatever the hot dot com was of the day.  Everyone buying stock into any telecommunications company they could find, from wireless to pager to internet service...These hit the dirt.  Add to all this, that with your average work 401k, you could "control" your stock purchases indirectly, over the internet, or by making a phone call.   The stock market, inflated by all these basically worthless companies, fell.   Telecommunications giants fell as Jack took the proverbial hatchet to their beanstalks.  All these dot coms (pick one) imploded.  The stock market fell.  People with no stock experience, or market experience sunk entire life savings into the market and LOST.  Is that the Presidents (Clinton's or Bush's) fault? No.  But how far has it really fallen, or has it just leveled off to what is really, a normal pace.  And it is not just us.  The Japanese stock market is way down, as is the European, but that is probably due to our market.  I would be interested to see a "pre dot com explosion" graph of the stock market then, to what it is now.  

I don't want our sons and daughters fighting in a war for oil, etc
I don't want our military men and women to spill blood over oil either.  Noone in their right mind would.  The liberals want to make it out that way, but it is just not that way.  The Clinton way, the REACTIVE approach, DID NOT WORK. I will lay part of the blame on Bush Sr. in regards to Saddam, but I have my own theory on that for another time (just ask me later).  Had Clinton been more PROACTIVE in his dealings with Saddam (lets face it, the man just did not disappear), we might not (or might anyway) be in this position today.  Saddam was vigorously defying UN (not US) resolutions while Clinton was in the Office.  Had Clinton been more PROACTIVE (or even been the most remote reactive) to the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole might never had been attacked, both of which were claimed by the Al-Qeada and bin Laden (an interesting sidenote - when the Cole was being towed out of Yemin, Kid Rock's "American Bada$$" was being blared on the loudspeaker system...I have always thought that was pretty damn cool).  Had Clinton even been mildly REACTIVE in these events, 09/11/01 might have been avoided.  So, in a sense, Bush is just cleaning out Clintons old garbage, and suffering the consequences of it.  I didn't mean this turn into a Clinton bashing, but it did.  You can always say hindsight is 20/20...

BUT THERE IS WHERE I HAVE YOU

What if Bush sits back.  And does nothing.  1 year from now, the US is the victim of another terrorist attack.  Nuclear.  Chemical.  Take your pick.  Some might say that idea is nothing but propaganda to support him.  BUT.  What if?  What if the al-qeada or some cell obtains these weapons from Saddam, or Saddam uses them himself?  People will say "ITS BUSH'S FAULT!!! HE SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING WHEN HE HAD THE CHANCE!!!" well, he is doing something while he has a chance.  Taking a proactive approach to stop what could be.  

However, taking the necessary actions now can and will prevent it in the future.  Call it "preventive maintanence".  

This turned out longer than I thought so I will end it here and see what kind of responses are made.  Lets try and keep this as civil as possible, please.

[CP5670]

End of the world my arse - this is just another unpleasant episode, like the world has eaten a bad curry or something.... uh I don't care anymore..... *goes to bed*

lol the masses typically complain about this same thing before a war; it has happen quite a few times now in history.

[Stryke 9]

*sigh* You have no idea how much it irritates me to have to read a few dozen lengthy posts just re-spouting the same propogandic tripe the poster heard on the news. Think about it for once:

1. In wars, people die. LOTS of people, generally. The idea that somehow killing more people solves problems all on its own is a moronic one, unless your problem happens to involve overpopulation. Claims about "Had Clinton been more PROACTIVE (or even been the most remote reactive)" are bull****. Had we gone to war then, nothing would have changed, just as it hasn't now. Afghanistan, after a short respite, has returned to warlord anarchy, as far as we know Al Quaida  (sp?) is still perfectly functional, and if not, hell, most of the Middle East hates us more than ever, and there's plenty to fill in Osama's place in ten more years. What's more, we're rapidly losing credibility in Europe, and the tendency for our allies is no longer to suck up to the US so much as to be distanced from it. Hardly progress, is it? At least, with the passive policy Clinton exemplified, we weren't making things worse.
And fewer people would be dead. Let;s not forget that. It's sickening how many people (particularly the fat-assed rich old senators) are willing to stand up and filibuster about how it's someone else's duty to go get their legs blown off, lead in the head, or shellshock in order to protect their own liberties. It's bull****, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you really want a war, get a gun, get a plane ticket to Iran, and go ****ing do it yourself. THEN you're free to blather all you like aboput abstract ideals, and we'll all listen politely. Until then, you're by definition full of ****.

2. SADDAM IS NOT A THREAT. This is really, really lame-brained. We're sitting here, nation with enough nukes to blow up the world a thousand times over, and enough standard munitions to do it again a couple times, military technology that belongs in a sci-fi movie, millions of soldiers, global reach, trillions of dollars in defence spending, nearly the best intel system in the world, and most of the world's governments (formerly) willing to collectively suck off the President for a little attention, and we're crapping our pants because the tinpot dictator of an impoverished desert nation may, at some point far in the future, have access to a single nuke, or may right now have enough poison gas to make everyone in a small city badly ill. Never mind that he'll never have a delivery system. Never mind that it in no way would serve his interests to USE said weapons against any other nation. Never mind that we could get together and use just the tiniest portion of the world's collective intelligence, financial, and technological resources to ensure that if Saddam had a wet fart, we'd know about it a week in advance. Nooo, he's a THREAT, and he's going to KILL US ALL unless we go in there and depopulate a few cities with mortars. How pathetic- the world cowering before an imaginary, non-functional nuke in the hands of a man who doesn't plan on using it. Clearly, the solution is to go out there and kill a lot of foreigners.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Stryke 9


*sigh* You have no idea how much it irritates me to have to read a few dozen lengthy posts just re-spouting the same propogandic tripe the poster heard on the news. Think about it for once:

1. In wars, people die. LOTS of people, generally. The idea that somehow killing more people solves problems all on its own is a moronic one, unless your problem happens to involve overpopulation. Claims about "Had Clinton been more PROACTIVE (or even been the most remote reactive)" are bull****. Had we gone to war then, nothing would have changed, just as it hasn't now. Afghanistan, after a short respite, has returned to warlord anarchy, as far as we know Al Quaida  (sp?) is still perfectly functional, and if not, hell, most of the Middle East hates us more than ever, and there's plenty to fill in Osama's place in ten more years. What's more, we're rapidly losing credibility in Europe, and the tendency for our allies is no longer to suck up to the US so much as to be distanced from it. Hardly progress, is it? At least, with the passive policy Clinton exemplified, we weren't making things worse.
And fewer people would be dead. Let;s not forget that. It's sickening how many people (particularly the fat-assed rich old senators) are willing to stand up and filibuster about how it's someone else's duty to go get their legs blown off, lead in the head, or shellshock in order to protect their own liberties. It's bull****, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. If you really want a war, get a gun, get a plane ticket to Iran, and go ****ing do it yourself. THEN you're free to blather all you like aboput abstract ideals, and we'll all listen politely.Until then, you're by definition full of ****.

Wow, you think you know a lot about me, don't ya?

You're saying that since clinton didn't do anything, then it wasn't making things worse.

BULL****.

All Clinton did was bomb the wrong people. He knew where OBL was, and chose not to do anything for fear of upsetting the OPEC nations. So by letting OBL and Al Queda fester in the Middle East, tehy had all the time and room needed to train for 9/11.

Investigations into 9-11 show that it was planned well into the clinton era. however he was so busy fighting his own impeachment that he didn't do a damn thing about it.

I'm sorry, but when someone joins the military, they are taking an oath to serve in the military and defend the US at all costs. Would you rather sit by and wait for Iraq to come here?

Back in the late 30's the US didn't bother paying attention to Hitler or Japan taking over Europe and the Pacific. You leftists are so irritating, in other words, in order to save those few precious lives that MAY be lost, you'd waut for them to start killing US civilians.


One more thing- the Gulf War has NEVER ENDED. It was a conditional cease fire agreement that was signed. The condidions were that Saddam was to comply with the UN resolutions NOT to develop WOMD, which he has. to NOT deny access to weapons inspectors, and to obey the restrictions of the no-fly zones.

US and British planes have been fired at over 700 times from Iraqi ground units while patrolling the no fly zones. Do any of you not remember this?!? they were firing at those militay men you are so dedicated in defending. Top level defectors have proven that Saddam has developed chemical weapons, and now produces the technology to develop nukes. Should we wait for someone carrying a nuke on his back to walk up to the capitol before you agree we should do something?

2. SADDAM IS NOT A THREAT. This is really, really lame-brained. We're sitting here, nation with enough nukes to blow up the world a thousand times over, and enough standard munitions to do it again a couple times, military technology that belongs in a sci-fi movie, millions of soldiers, global reach, trillions of dollars in defence spending, nearly the best intel system in the world, and most of the world's governments (formerly) willing to collectively suck off the President for a little attention, and we're crapping our pants because the tinpot dictator of an impoverished desert nation may, at some point far in the future, have access to a single nuke, or may right now have enough poison gas to make everyone in a small city badly ill. Never mind that he'll never have a delivery system. Never mind that it in no way would serve his interests to USE said weapons against any other nation. Never mind that we could get together and use just the tiniest portion of the world's collective intelligence, financial, and technological resources to ensure that if Saddam had a wet fart, we'd know about it a week in advance. Nooo, he's a THREAT, and he's going to KILL US ALL unless we go in there and depopulate a few cities with mortars. How pathetic- the world cowering before an imaginary, non-functional nuke in the hands of a man who doesn't plan on using it. Clearly, the solution is to go out there and kill a lot of foreigners.

as I said before. you're saying we should wait for him to nuke us first? to invade another country like Isreal? there is no delivery system necessary for a nuke- not a dirty bomb, but a nuke. and he's not "far from it" he's got the technology, just not the uranium, which we all know is available on the black market .

he's broken the resolutions countless times, and has broken the cease fire agreement that "ended" the Gulf War. We have had every right to go in there since 1993 but Clinton instead took campaign money from the Saudis and pretended not to know anything.

And please explain how you know, or why you think that Saddam would not use such weapons? Are you even old enough to remember the Gulf War?

[Mr. Vega]

You're missing the point. If we went after them Heretic, there would be 3 Al Quedas, instead of one. Kill one terrorist and four more come out of hatred. They'll stop hating you if you stop returning hate. Afganistan accomplished nothing, except appeasing my countrymen. If you think there's no way to peacefully deal with the arabs in the end, then you might as well just nuke them all. This fucing war is pointless, and it's only getting more pointless.

And I am sick and tired of people saying its not anyone's buisness. People think that we should care about global warming because its not really affecting us. Bull****. You're great-grandsons and daughter will when they can't open the windows because of the air. How they'll wish you made it your buisness. Wake up.

[Stryke 9]

As to the first part- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You're full of it. I don't care about Clinton, that was of secondary interest, we could go arguing all year about Clinton and never get anywhere, and I really don't care enough about Clinton to bother. No comment on that, try to drag the topic over to that again, and I trash the thread.

No. You're still utterly missing the point, which is that if you're so damn sure you're right, don't demand that OTHERS go out and put their lives on the line for you. You believe in this, do it yourself, or shut the **** up. I'm all for overthrow of the United States, but I'm not saying some college kids should go out and get shot to pieces for the Cause. I'm working for the revolution myself, not relying on anyone else in the least, and if anyone's gonna end up going down for a better world in 20 years, it's as likely me as anyone. So, from where I see it, you're just being a passive, hypocritical whiner. Want something done? Do it your ****ing self- join the Army and be on the front lines of Iraq. If you really care about the remote possibility of civilian losses in the US, quit sitting around whining about "you damn kids, back when I was a boy, bah-bah-bah" and labeling everyone in sight, go and solve the ****ing problem yourself. Not another word from you about that, because your sort makes my gorge rise and I don't know if I can avoid giving you a piece of my mind if you try excusing yourself from declaring that it's someone else's duty to die for your ideas, while you sit around and make the incredible sacrifice of filibustering for hours on how their death is the right thing.

you're saying we should wait for him to nuke us first? to invade another country like Isreal? there is no delivery system necessary for a nuke- not a dirty bomb, but a nuke.

Uh-huh. Iraq has invaded Israel? That's news to me. He's going to? He's a dead man, then. Israel's got some bad-assed military tech, one of the best armies in the world. Just ask Sandwich, they've got some damn cool gear and a nation of soldiers. Saddam has about enough to defend his country against invasion, and that's about it.
You don't need a delivery system for a nuke? Shows how much you know. Unless you're planning in detonating it in the lab, yes, you most certainly do. A delivery system doesn't have to be anything so fancy as an ICBM, it could even be a smallish yacht, but it just plain ain't gonna happen. You have to have a hell of a lot of advanced technology to even BUILD a portable nuke (a cannon-format nuke is another story, but you might as well rip up a largish office building and throw it at an enemy country), and it's improbable that a prototype Iraqui nuke would even detonate, let alone fail to give everyone operating it leukemia. They're a bastard to make, and there's no way of knowing if you've got it right unless you test one (which, of course, he can't do). Any first try at a nuke is infinitely unlikely to malfunction. Do you even know what it takes to construct one of those babies? If it was that easy, I'd have one.
Never mind the fact that, once again, he has nothing to gain from using one, anyway. So, say Saddam for some reason decides to nuke the US. He sends a smallish freighter (still big enough to be easy as all hell to pick up, and obvious from miles away- the whole idea of an effective "suitcase nuke" is best described as a combination joke and big-gun fantasy) into the Potomac, up goes part of DC. Boom. Nice fireworks- too bad, he probably didn't even take out most of the city, never mind the US's military power. So American troops get sent over to Iraq. Boom boom boom blammo kazow boom. Saddam's dead, the Republican Guard's dead, most of the populace is dead, Iraq is either a radioactive sheet of glass or a new Texas. I'm sure that's high on the list of Saddam's goals. Giving a nuke to terrorists or using chemical weapons would have much the same effect- it's hurt his target, but not nearly so much as it'd hurt him. So now, your turn. why the hell WOULD he use a nuke?

[heretic]

Originally posted by Mr. Vega
You're missing the point. If we went after them Heretic, there would be 3 Al Quedas, instead of one. Kill one terrorist and four more come out of hatred. They'll stop hating you if you stop returning hate. Afganistan accomplished nothing, except appeasing my countrymen. If you think there's no way to peacefully deal with the arabs in the end, then you might as well just nuke them all. This fucing war is pointless, and it's only getting more pointless.

I'd agree with you except on one thing- Terrorist Organizations such as Al Queda see the Western Capatilist world as a plague that needs to be rid of. They are militant, and refer themselves as declaring a jihad. In fact, Clinton did nothing to provoke 9-11, nor did Bush. OBL took it upon himself. They will not stop at trying to destroy all the Western World stands for.

And I am sick and tired of people saying its not anyone's buisness. People think that we should care about global warming because its not really affecting us. Bull****. You're great-grandsons and daughter will when they can't open the windows because of the air. How they'll wish you made it your buisness.

As to global warming, they are doing something about it. I care about it. I'm glad to hear the Ozone hole is closing. Vehicle emmissions are now almost undetectable. I feel it'll take time.

[heretic]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
As to the first part- blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You're full of it.  

Since you can't do anything but insult, you're the first I have ever put on my ignore list here.

Hell, you do nothing but spam and flame anyone who disagrees with you. You're someone who should have been banned a long time ago.

goodbye.

[Stryke 9]

Nice dodge. First one who's resorted to hiding in a LONG while.


Shoulda figured, though. Same strength of character as evidenced in the politics.

[JR2000Z]

Originally posted by heretic



I'd agree with you except on one thing- Terrorist Organizations such as Al Queda see the Western Capatilist world as a plague that needs to be rid of. They are militant, and refer themselves as declaring a jihad. In fact, Clinton did nothing to provoke 9-11, nor did Bush. OBL took it upon himself. They will not stop at trying to destroy all the Western World stands for.
 

Uh...no.  The Al Queda did 9-11 because of the US involvement in the middle east.

[heretic]

what involvement? not the gulf war.

No, the Taliban and AQ constantly touted how the western world of infedels will be crushed.

[Shrike]

Go to bed guys..... don't make me close this.

[Stryke 9]

Go to bed??? It's only 2 AM out here! I practically just got up!

Dammit, there's never anyone online at night...

[Knight Templar]

I'm here

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Stryke 9 (responding to heretic's squelching of him)Nice dodge. First one who's resorted to hiding in a LONG while.

Shoulda figured, though. Same strength of character as evidenced in the politics.

LOL! I'm sorry, heretic, but Stryke's reply here was a classic comeback.

Now, back on topic:

I don't support going to war in Iraq because we're still fighting a war against Al Queda. It makes no sense to start one war, fight it for a few months, and then start a NEW war on a NEW front without having finished the old war.

And for those who say that Iraq is merely an extension of the war on terror, then you obviously don't know that Saddam and Al Queda are NOT allies, feeble protestations by the Bush Administration notwithstanding. Saddam is a ruthless tyrant, true, but he's a secular Muslim and has no interest in turning Iraq into an Islamic state. Al Queda has precisely the opposite agenda: they want to turn the whole Middle east into a big medieval Islamic caliphate, with Bin Laddie at its head. To do this, they'd need to get rid of Saddam, who definitely won't go quietly.

There's no evidence, repeat, NO evidence, that Saddam and Al Queda are allies or have any intention of allying with each other against us. Bush points to a single meeting between an Al Queda guy and a low-ranking Iraqi and tries to pass this off as evidence of an Al Queda-Saddam alliance. But US Intelligence doesn't know what they talked about, what they did, or even how long the meeting lasted. THIS is evidence that Saddam is allying with Osama bin Laden? This is crap that proves nothing. If you tried to use this meeting as evidence of an Al Queda-Saddam alliance in MI5 or the Mossad, they'd laugh you out of their offices.

Watching Bush, I can't help but think that since he can't catch Osama, he's taking his ire out on Saddam just because Saddam's a convenient target and Dubya wants to get revenge for his daddy.

The only way Saddam might give Osama bin Laden nukes or other weapons of mass destruction is if Sadam feels he has nothing to lose, which is what will happen if the US unilaterally attacks Iraq.

Bush is an idiot who doesn't understand basic tactics. You don't fight a two-front war if you can avoid it. Otherwise, it will stretch your resources to the breaking point. It makes far more sense to take care of Al Queda FIRST, THEN deal with Saddam LATER.

[Knight Templar]

Bush is an idiot who doesn't understand basic tactics. You don't fight a two-front war if you can avoid it. Otherwise, it will stretch your resources to the breaking point. It makes far more sense to take care of Al Queda FIRST, THEN deal with Saddam LATER.

maybe that german lady who campared Bush to Hitler wasn't so far off the mark in the first place...

[Stryke 9]

Squelching? Hardly, unless running away shrieking "I can't hear you lalalalala..." qualifies as a devastating rhetorical coup.


Heeey... if I'm on his ignore list, he can't see my posts, yes?

OY! HERETIC! WANT ME TO SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO A PORN SPAM LISTING??? DON'T POST IF YOU'RE NOT INTO THAT SORT OF STUFF...