412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 18.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >
 |
| 72. |
Re: vetos |
Mar 20, 2003, 19:38 |
Pellet Puppy |
|
|
cock climber
Oh your making me cry.
*tear*
Seriously alot of Americans don't agree with this war. Your only hurting this debate and your argument by randomly insulting people that you don't know.
"Also keep in mind the Israel/Palestinian conflict is actually where it all starts"
Not really. This War was started when Iraq failed to disarm after 12 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 71. |
vetos |
Mar 20, 2003, 19:17 |
rock climber |
|
|
I just want to point out to all the american dumbfucks that think France or any other country has to comply with what Bush or America wants: YOU ARE WRONG.
Also, i would like to suggest you doing some research on Google with these keywords: american + veto + israel
Finally, I've picked one good article so you can read about US constant support to the jews on Israel. And guess what, IM TALKING ABOUT THE FREQUENT USE OF VETO HERE.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/WarCrimes.html
Also keep in mind the Israel/Palestinian conflict is actually where it all starts. Where it aaaall starts isnt it...
"They" prefer to keep increasing so called "national security", ongoing fight against "terrorism" (heh, they now appy the terms terror and terrorism on everything sheesh), war, spionage, etc etc instead of going direct to the point: ISRAEL.
I saw the news tonight, Mr. "murderer" Sharon was saying something in the likes of "yada yada yada we totally support Bush's administration decision to make war with Iraq and remove Saddam from power".
Theres not much else to say.
My hate for spoonfed american people grows everyday.
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 19:22. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
cock climber aka rock climber |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 70. |
The Bush Factor |
Mar 20, 2003, 19:08 |
bigp3rm |
|
|
As a registered Democrat I have to bash here.. Wrong.. I couldn't be more proud to be an American than right now. The president of my country has been completely open about his policy on Iraq. When your break it down to it's basic form (not shortening the seriousness of the situation) it's this.. How many times can you state publicly to the world "exactly" what is going to happen?
The term "rush to war" people are using should be examined closer. Often terms like this sound ring well but what does "rush" really mean? You can figure that out..
As for the people that still think the we needed UN support to you I say this.. The people of Serbia invite you to visit the blood pools of their mothers and fathers who were "cleansed"..
To allow 500 reporters to film and record this action says something in itself. I have seen people compare and use terms labeling the US as terrorists. I ask you.. Did the group of people on 9-11 tell the world what it was about to do and what it's intentions were?
God bless you all and God bless my great country..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 69. |
Re: Canada's position, eh? |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:43 |
JM |
|
|
why is the best approach to invade his country
As I see it, it is the only approach when Iraq is unwilling to comply with U.N. resolutions. And playing hide-and-seek and forcing U.N. inspectors to become detectives is not compliance. What other options remain at this point? As you said yourself, I'm not deliberately being arguementative, it just seems painfully obvious to me that now is the time to act rather than wait for the in-your-face type of evidence you require.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 68. |
Re: Test |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:39 |
Blue |
|
|
What are you talking about, Hump?
I'm interested in the answer to that one as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen "Blue" Heaslip
Blue's News Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, El Presidente for Life |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 67. |
Re: Canada's position, eh? |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:25 |
JHMirage |
|
|
And what if there is never international agreement?
I'm not looking for 100% support from all nations... that's not realistic. But the US/Britain going it (for all intents and purposes) alone strikes me as odd and unnecessary if there truly is an immediate threat there.
So until the Iraqi army lands upon our shores, we should not be concerned the potential threat they pose? Obviously, that's not going to happen, so the only way Iraq can threaten us is through indirect means such as providing weapons/money to terrorist organizations. We'd be foolish to allow that to happen when we can take steps to prevent it.
I agree. Where is the evidence that that is happening? More to the point, where is the evidence that war is the best way to stop that from hapenning?
If I see you making weapons of mass destruction against the will of the rest of the world, then yes, I will "proactively cut off your arms".
Okay... why are we the only ones who are sure he's about to unleash these horrible weapons on the world? More to the point, why are the countries much closer to the action not nearly as scared of that as we are? Why can't we convince anyone else (besides the UK) that he's an immediate threat? And, lastly and most importantly, why is the best approach to invade his country, thus removing any remaining incentive he might have to hold back from unleashing whatever weapons he might already have?
I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative... I honestly haven't been convinced of it, nor (apparently) have many other countries in the world. And they, presumably, have much more information on the subject than I (or you, I might add) do.
Jeff
Edit: spelling
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 18:26. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer over?
Virus = very yes?
That's not a good prize! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 66. |
Re: Canada's position, eh? |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:15 |
JM |
|
|
I'm not going to pretend I have all the facts, but I'd have liked to see more international agreement on this point.
And what if there is never international agreement?
I was never convinced that Hussein's regime was a direct (and immediate) threat to the US
So until the Iraqi army lands upon our shores, we should not be concerned the potential threat they pose? Obviously, that's not going to happen, so the only way Iraq can threaten us is through indirect means such as providing weapons/money to terrorist organizations. We'd be foolish to allow that to happen when we can take steps to prevent it.
Since I’m the biggest guy around, and you look like you might feel like punching me in the face at some point, I’m going to pro-actively cut off your arms.
If I see you making weapons of mass destruction against the will of the rest of the world, then yes, I will "proactively cut off your arms".
Is Hussein an evil prick who would stoop to using chemical or bio-weapons? Should Hussein be removed from power? I think so.
At least we agree on something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 65. |
Re: Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:08 |
aguita |
|
|
What about Bin Laden? Most people didn't see him as a threat before 9/11!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 64. |
News sucks.. |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:00 |
aguita |
|
|
Face it, there are a million quotes about how evil news actually is. You have a small group of people telling everyone else what they should see or watch or read.
Thomas Jefferson said it so well:
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Take what you see and read with a grain of salt. People believe entirely too much in what is presented to them.
** I'm not denying that there is a war out there, I am merely bringing up the fact that the news media in general should be taken with a grain of salt. Apply your own intellect to what is being said on all sides and make your own conclusion. Too many people in the world take what they're given as fact, and it's very sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 63. |
Re: Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein |
Mar 20, 2003, 18:00 |
JHMirage |
|
|
How much proof do you need?
Well, how about any? I see plenty of evidence that he's a liar and weasel, and that he's a danger to his own population, and possibly to Kuwait, but I'm not seeing the serious threat to the United States. Most of the “facts” you list are just reasons to think he’s screwing around to try to stay in power as long as possible… not that there’s imminent danger to the U.S.
I thought you just said you didn't think he was a threat to the US or it's allies.
Careful... I said that he wasn't a threat to the US... we can't and shouldn't decide if he's a threat to "our allies" or not... that's for them to decide, and that's my point. They don't seem as convinced as Bush is. (And, as has been opined here by others, I'm not prepared to believe that he's just smarter than everyone else... :P)
What other nation should remove Saddam from power?(You agreed he needed to be removed) And last time I checked the US FAILED to Bully France,China, and Russia. Apparently the US isn't the only one with power in the UN.
Um... you appear to be arguing my point here. I think there should be a large agreement that he's gotten dangerous enough to remove by force before we commit to war, and (as you pointed out) most of the security council didn't feel that way. If they did, we wouldn’t have to bear the brunt of the economic and human toll, as will now be the case.
You're also falling into the Bush/Blair-istic thought process (I invented a new word!) that war is now the only way to get him out of power. Nobody on the security council likes Hussein... but most of them aren't convinced we have to resort to war to get him out of there.
Jeff
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 18:03. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer over?
Virus = very yes?
That's not a good prize! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 62. |
Today's OOTB makes one think |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:53 |
Elvis |
|
|
of Hemingway:
"Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada, pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee."
Ernest Hemingway
(1898-suicide 1961)
American Writer, Nobel Prize 1954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 61. |
Little Preview |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:41 |
Franky |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 60. |
Re: Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:34 |
Pellet Puppy |
|
|
For me, personally, I was never convinced that Hussein's regime was a direct (and immediate) threat to the US,
How much proof do you need? The UN ordered Iraq to disarm within 90 days. They didn't. Is the US evil for enforcing an agreement that the UN made? Voting for this war seems to be a contradiction. They've already agreed that Iraq needed to disarm within 90days. NOT 12 years or 50 years.
The UN Screwed up. Not the US.
Is Hussein an evil prick who would stoop to using chemical or bio-weapons? Should Hussein be removed from power? I think so. I thought you just said you didn't think he was a threat to the US or it's allies.
I don’t think that the US should be the unilateral bully of the international community.
What other nation should remove Saddam from power?(You agreed he needed to be removed) And last time I checked the US FAILED to Bully France,China, and Russia. Apparently the US isn't the only one with power in the UN. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 59. |
Re: Test |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:18 |
Atomic |
|
|
What are you talking about, Hump?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."
-George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 58. |
Re: Canada's position, eh? |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:16 |
Fang |
|
|
Just say no to Iraqi Freedom! [/sarcasm]
For me, personally, I was never convinced that Hussein's regime was a direct (and immediate) threat to the US, nor have I been shown any serious evidence that Saddam is directly involved with terrorist groups like Al-Queda.
The French weren't convinced of Hitler's direct and immediate threat to them either. If we were to wait for until the French were convinced of that (we'd be waiting a long time), it would cost more coalition lives. Sorry, for me, that isn't worth it. If we can save one US soldier's life, then I say forget the French.
Anyways, what do you guys think of the New York Times reports about the collusions between the French and Chinese companies to provide illegal arms to Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 57. |
Test |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:08 |
Hump |
|
|
just want to see if this post gets deleted for no apparent reason as well....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 56. |
Re: Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein |
Mar 20, 2003, 17:04 |
Pellet Puppy |
|
|
Some people here think, that the U.S. are not very democratic anymore in a way as we understand it. The involvment of people from the oil & weapon industry in your government seems really strange to us and makes us wonder whether they decide, what's best for you, or what's best for them and the companies that use to feed them.
Well I think that companies shouldn't be able to make deals or give money in elections. Most Americans would probably agree with you since most of them don't vote. Elections always turn into a popularity/pissing contest.
- what shocks us is your media (we recieve CNN here in Germany as well). The way a war is presented there as some sort of action game, with computer animations all nice and clean. Are you really sure, that your media is still the free press it used to be or is it more or less a press channel from the government? Where are some critical questions and starting a war is definitely the time to aks a lot of questions. How is it possible to proper judge a certain information for an individual if your not sure anymore whether you can trust the basis you build this opinion on?
CNN is doing a bad job, enjoys war, has bad information, is not liberal enough, has an agenda, etc.
Your right, but all news sources are guilty of the same thing 
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 17:36. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 55. |
No subject |
Mar 20, 2003, 16:55 |
Lowen SoDium |
|
|
I am Sparticus... I mean:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 54. |
Re: Canada's position, eh? |
Mar 20, 2003, 16:50 |
JHMirage |
|
|
At what time or under what circumstances would this war be necessary for you then?
I'm not going to pretend I have all the facts, but I'd have liked to see more international agreement on this point.
For me, personally, I was never convinced that Hussein's regime was a direct (and immediate) threat to the US, nor have I been shown any serious evidence that Saddam is directly involved with terrorist groups like Al-Queda. Obviously a good majority of the UN Security Council wasn't convinced of the imminence of the threat from Iraq, either. Hell, Turkey and Saudi Arabia weren’t even for war and they border Iraq.
Is Hussein an evil prick who would stoop to using chemical or bio-weapons? Should Hussein be removed from power? I think so. I just don’t think that the US should be the unilateral bully of the international community. Seems a lot like saying, “Since I’m the biggest guy around, and you look like you might feel like punching me in the face at some point, I’m going to pro-actively cut off your arms. But for PEACE!”
<shrug>
I really didn't want to get into it in detail. (Especially not at work.) I was just reacting to an obvious dumbing-down of the relevant factors from a jingoistic loudmouth. That pushes my buttons. 
Jeff
This comment was edited on Mar 20, 16:52. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computer over?
Virus = very yes?
That's not a good prize! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 53. |
Re: Anti-War is not Pro-Hussein |
Mar 20, 2003, 16:41 |
Atomic |
|
|
What's next Weas, a link about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing."
-George Bernard Shaw |
|
|
|
|
| |
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 18.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
