Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 5.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

332. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 9, 2003, 00:53 Pedle Zelnip
 
Did you know under Patriot II I could be thrown in jail without trial for as long as the government wants just for speaking out against Bush. Does that sound like America Land Of The Free to you?

Really? Where have you heard that? (I mean this geniunely, I would really like to read the article or whatever you got this information from)

What do the events of 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

Good question. Of course being a "peacenik" I'd answer something along the lines of "it's the wool Bush is using to pull over the eyes of the American public to hide his true motives", but then again, I'm biased. =;->

And you've said nothing to counter it. What has he done in the last 12 years that justifies this illegal invasion. And yes, it's illegal. We are disobeying the U.N. to force Iraq to obey the U.N.

Again, I have difficulty with the "illegal" label, although I understand where you're coming from as the US invasion violates UN charter.



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
331. Re: -JM Apr 8, 2003, 22:52 Pedle Zelnip
 
According to the latest polls, only 13% of people are against the war. Lately it's been 63.3% on this message board. It's good to have some help in the matter. Talking with these loons get's tiring, because they don't really listen to what your saying and they keep barking out the same loony-tune points. When they are wrong(which is close 100% of the time) they either refuse to answer the questions or skip around them.

ROTFLMAO, now that's some funny shit. =8->



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
330. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 22:47 Pedle Zelnip
 
And how do we focus upon problems at home if we must constantly look over our shoulders for threats coming from abroad?

Of course this presupposes that Iraq is in fact is a threat, which babar has repeatedly stated he does not belive is true.

Should we ignore all foreign threats until the enemy is knocking at our front door?

Ignore? No. But there is a big difference between ignoring and invading, and I'd rather see a middle between those two extremes.

If it's all about cost we should learn to recognize those threats and deal with them sooner rather than later.

Okay, now exactly how do we "recognize those threats"? And is there not other ways of "dealing" with them than invasion?

All you have to do is look at the cost of 9/11 to realize that a proactive approach would have cost much less in terms of lives lost and dollars spent.

Do you really think that war can be justified by a dollar amount? That human life has a price?

So do I. That's why I support any effort that helps rid the world of recognized threats to our way of life.

Again, this presupposes that Iraq is in fact a threat to "our way of life", which I don't see. Or at least, I don't see Iraq as any more of a threat than any other nation with WMD (assuming of course Iraq has WMD).

If a nation is allowed to invade another nation because the day might come when the second nation may pose a threat, then how can you not end up in a situation where literally every nation represents a threat to every other nation?



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
329. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 22:10 Pedle Zelnip
 
BS. You can't blame everything on Clinton

Well, I'd be inclined to agree with you on that, but perhaps a bit more reasons for feeling why Clinton can't be blamed for the issues Spanker is saying he should be blamed for might be helpful.

If they are useless and we are free to disobey them by invading Iraq, why do you expect Iraq to obey them?

Excellent point.

You want the US to be the world police and solve everybody's problems? Fine, but fix things here first. I care more about the U.S. and it's citizens than I do Iraq and the Iraqi citizens. Why is it the other way around for you?

Well, to be fair, I don't think he's arguing that we should ignore domestic concerns (although, given that I'm not Spanker, I don't want to speak for him). I would agree with you though that we should "take care of our own yard before cleaning up the neighbors" so to speak. Here's a beautiful quote that I think puts it even wonderfully well, and that is amazingly prophetic given that it was spoken a few decades ago:

"In the days ahead we must not consider it unpatriotic to raise certain basic questions about our national character. We must begin to ask, 'Why are there forty million poor people in a nation overflowing with such unbelievable affluence? Why has our nation placed itself in the position of being God's military agent on earth...? Why have we substituted the arrogant undertaking of policing the whole world for the high task of putting our own house in order?"

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.


PZ

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 22:36.
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
328. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 21:57 Pedle Zelnip
 
The US has a right to defend itself against being attacked, or any other country that it deems as a threat

Well, I'd partly agree. Yes, certainly the US (as does any other country) has a right to defend itself. The problem of course is whether or not you feel that the US is being attacked. Certainly some would say after 9/11 that they are, others would disagree (including myself).

However, I'm not sure I understand the second part of your statement ("or any other country that it deems as a threat"). Are you saying that if we think that if a country is in a position to hurt us, that we then have the right to attack them? (If that's the case, then what country isn't a threat?)

The US does not possess any of these bio/chem weapons in their arsenal... If you think this isn't true

Read my original post, I didn't say I thought that the US had them, I simply said if they did, then the argument that we should go after Iraq because they have illegal WMD falls apart.

crash and burn you liberal commies!

In what way is this not a personal attack on those on this board who are anti-war?




PZ
This comment was edited on Apr 9, 01:20.
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
327. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 20:26 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
First of all, it was never the UN's responsibility to "hunt" for the weapons. The UN was there to "confirm" disarmament, with a willing government. Iraq was not a willing government.

When the UN went to South Africa for disarmament inspections, South Africa proved to them through documentation and cooperation that they had no more weapons of mass destruction. South Africa wasn't playing a cat and mouse game like Iraq.

Let me repeat this again(for your thick skull) It is not the UN's charter to disarm Iraq, it was up to Iraq to prove this to the UN, and they failed. Hans Blix is loved by France(sold nuclear reactor and illegal munitions), Germany(built Saddam's bunkers) and Russia(sold jamming equiptment, provided training), because they knew he was going to draw things out.

17 blown resolutions is enough. Now the big leader with all his temples and effigies of himself is paying for it.

Why didn't we do this earlier? I totally agree with you, we should have done it long ago, I guess after this comment you have no problem doing this, since your argument is "we should have done this before, why now?".

Let's not forget one thing here Babar, the Iraqis aren't like us, the reason they(Arab countries) have brutal dictators, is because that's what a lot of them respect. They don't respect peace marchers like you, they really don't. They respect power and force, and that's what they are getting now. We will drag them into the 21st century. Remember, it was your hero Bill Clinton that taught us, we are a "world community" now and can't just ignore problems in the world. If we ignore them, who else has the power do do the right thing?

-Spanker has Spanketh.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
326. Re: -JM Apr 8, 2003, 17:42 babar
 
>Good points, nice comments It's good you wrote in.

Yeah, someone had to answer those questions since you wouldn't.

>According to the latest polls, only 13% of people are against the war. Lately it's been 63.3% on this message board.

Like I said in the beginning, the polls do not match the real world.

>When they are wrong(which is close 100% of the time) they either refuse to answer the questions or skip around them.

I've answered all of your questions and yet I'm still waiting for you to answer mine. You gonna try or are you going to skip around them?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
325. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 17:39 babar
 
>We already know the why. It's been said over and over and over again. You've chosen not to listen.

Because he's a bad guy and he has WOMD? There are a lot of world leaders that fit that description. Why aren't we going after them? Why only Iraq? I've asked that several times but nobody has been able to answer with anything but "he's a bad guy and he has WOMD".

And who's going to liberate us from the Bush administration who has taken many of our civil liberties away from us and is looking to take many, many more away when Patriot II gets passed. Did you know under Patriot II I could be thrown in jail without trial for as long as the government wants just for speaking out against Bush. Does that sound like America Land Of The Free to you?

>Because of the events of 9/11 and because we have a republican in the White House who has the guts to make the tough decisions and act on them.

What do the events of 9/11 have to do with Iraq?

>>Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years.
>Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

And you've said nothing to counter it. What has he done in the last 12 years that justifies this illegal invasion. And yes, it's illegal. We are disobeying the U.N. to force Iraq to obey the U.N.

>In case you don't follow the news, we are still in Afghanastan. We've never abandoned our efforts in ridding the world of Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. It just so happens that we have the muscle to fight multiple battles. So that's what we're doing.

After 9/11 Bush said we would not rest until we got Bin Ladin. It's been how long and Bin Ladin is still at large and all we ever hear about from Bush is Saddam. Afghanastan and Bin Ladin have taken a huge back seat to Saddam and that's wrong.

>We've acted against the will of the U.N. after they had proven themselves useless. We we're counting on the U.N. to stand firm with regards to Iraq, which they failed to do. The U.S. is reacting to the situation caused by the U.N.'s ineffectiveness.

The U.N. was not ineffective. There were inspectors there looking for WOMD. If Saddam actually has them then the inspectors would have found them eventually and it would have been done without having to kill innocent civilians many of which were children. And when the inspectors were in Iraq they didn't find anything even though the US kept giving them sites to look at. The inspectors said the US was sending them on wild goose chases. Basically, the US got impatient and nervous the longer the inspectors were there not finding anything. The US didn't want them to find WOMD and they didn't want to give them long enough to look because that wouldn't have given them a reason to invade Iraq so they could get their oil.

>BS. You can't blame everything on Clinton.
Everything? We're talking about one specific instance here and you've said nothing to counter it.

My point is that bad things happen all over the world all the time and the US does nothing about it. Rowanda was one prime example. First he tried to blame it on the Libertarians and then he tried to blame it on Clinton. Who cares why we didn't do anything, the point is we didn't and I'm sure there's many more instances where the US did nothing. I prefer that we do nothing when it doesn't directly affect us. Iraq does not pose a direct threat to the US. Never has, never will. Instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on an illegal invasion we should using that money to fix our own problems. If you hadn't noticed the ecomony is pretty much in the toilet and Bush doesn't even care.

>Care to elaborate? I've been seeing plenty of video of Iraqis cheering and welcoming our troops with open arms. They sure act like people who view themselves on the "winning" side. Yes, there have been civilian casualties, but certainly not as many that would result from the continued reign of a murdering dictator.

I've seen just as many pictures of children that have been killed, but hey at least this one survived, right?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12821263&method=full&siteid=50143

>And how do we focus upon problems at home if we must constantly look over our shoulders for threats coming from abroad? Should we ignore all foreign threats until the enemy is knocking at our front door? If it's all about cost we should learn to recognize those threats and deal with them sooner rather than later. All you have to do is look at the cost of 9/11 to realize that a proactive approach would have cost much less in terms of lives lost and dollars spent.

Explain to me how Saddam is a threat to us.

>So do I. That's why I support any effort that helps rid the world of recognized threats to our way of life.

How is Saddam a threat to our way of life?

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 18:36.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
324. -JM Apr 8, 2003, 16:14 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Good points, nice comments It's good you wrote in. According to the latest polls, only 13% of people are against the war. Lately it's been 63.3% on this message board. It's good to have some help in the matter. Talking with these loons get's tiring, because they don't really listen to what your saying and they keep barking out the same loony-tune points. When they are wrong(which is close 100% of the time) they either refuse to answer the questions or skip around them.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
323. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 8, 2003, 14:32 JM
 
Why Iraq...
We already know the why. It's been said over and over and over again. You've chosen not to listen.

...why now?
Because of the events of 9/11 and because we have a republican in the White House who has the guts to make the tough decisions and act on them.

Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years.
Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Why aren't we focused on Bin Laden, someone who supposedly orchestrated 9/11, instead of Saddam? Isn't Bin Laden supposed to be a bigger threat to our way of life than Saddam is?
In case you don't follow the news, we are still in Afghanastan. We've never abandoned our efforts in ridding the world of Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. It just so happens that we have the muscle to fight multiple battles. So that's what we're doing.

The reason why we didn't do anything is because we had a democratic President in office! U.N. had monitors in Rwanda at the time, but they didn't do anything or report anything until blood and body parts started floating down the river. Is any of this getting into you thick skull?
BS. You can't blame everything on Clinton.

Everything? We're talking about one specific instance here and you've said nothing to counter it.

You say the U.N is useless yet you want Iraq to obey them?!? If they are useless and we are free to disobey them by invading Iraq, why do you expect Iraq to obey them?
We've acted against the will of the U.N. after they had proven themselves useless. We we're counting on the U.N. to stand firm with regards to Iraq, which they failed to do. The U.S. is reacting to the situation caused by the U.N.'s ineffectiveness.

>Yes, there is, the Iraq people will be the winners.
I doubt that.

Care to elaborate? I've been seeing plenty of video of Iraqis cheering and welcoming our troops with open arms. They sure act like people who view themselves on the "winning" side. Yes, there have been civilian casualties, but certainly not as many that would result from the continued reign of a murdering dictator.

But I do know that the U.S. citizens will be the losers...we are already. We've had several of our civil liberties taken away from us since 9/11 and it's only going to get worse if Patriot II gets passed...you know the same freedoms that we're supposed to be bringing to the Iraqi people. Congress just OKed a $80 billion deal for the war, yet we have many problems here in America that could have used that money.
And how do we focus upon problems at home if we must constantly look over our shoulders for threats coming from abroad? Should we ignore all foreign threats until the enemy is knocking at our front door? If it's all about cost we should learn to recognize those threats and deal with them sooner rather than later. All you have to do is look at the cost of 9/11 to realize that a proactive approach would have cost much less in terms of lives lost and dollars spent.

You want the US to be the world police and solve everybody's problems? Fine, but fix things here first. I care more about the U.S. and it's citizens than I do Iraq and the Iraqi citizens.
So do I. That's why I support any effort that helps rid the world of recognized threats to our way of life.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
322. Peace Protesters? Apr 8, 2003, 12:32 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Did you guys see those peace protesters in chokeland?(Oakland, Chokeland for Raider Fans) They were trying to block food shipments to Iraq.... what an imbarrasment to the peace movement! I loved the part where the police came in and cracked a few skulls, and dished out some major welts after the "peace" marchers started getting violent again. We need to throw these loons in jail. Free speach is one thing, blocking food and getting in the way when are troops need help is another.

-Peace Marchers suck

-Spanker has Spankend.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
321. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 7, 2003, 20:09 babar
 
>Didn't you get the point of my last post? Are you even reading what I have to say?

Yes, and you didn't answer my questions. (Are you reading my posts?) Let's try this again: Why Iraq, why now? Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years. Why the sudden need to remove him from power? Why aren't we focused on Bin Laden, someone who supposedly orchestrated 9/11, instead of Saddam? Isn't Bin Laden supposed to be a bigger threat to our way of life than Saddam is? If you want me to support the war you should start by answering these questions.

>The reason why we didn't do anything is because we had a democratic President in office! U.N. had monitors in Rwanda at the time, but they didn't do anything or report anything until blood and body parts started floating down the river. Is any of this getting into you thick skull?

BS. You can't blame everything on Clinton.

>The U.N is useless and I'm glad they're going to be taking a back seat to the rebuilding of Iraq.

You say the U.N is useless yet you want Iraq to obey them?!? If they are useless and we are free to disobey them by invading Iraq, why do you expect Iraq to obey them?

>Yes, there is, the Iraq people will be the winners.

I doubt that. But I do know that the U.S. citizens will be the losers...we are already. We've had several of our civil liberties taken away from us since 9/11 and it's only going to get worse if Patriot II gets passed...you know the same freedoms that we're supposed to be bringing to the Iraqi people. Congress just OKed a $80 billion deal for the war, yet we have many problems here in America that could have used that money.

You want the US to be the world police and solve everybody's problems? Fine, but fix things here first. I care more about the U.S. and it's citizens than I do Iraq and the Iraqi citizens. Why is it the other way around for you?

This comment was edited on Apr 7, 20:10.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
319. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 7, 2003, 15:55 babar
 
>CCN- BREAKING NEWS Material found at paramilitary camp in Hindiyah, Iraq, tests positive for chemical-warfare agents in preliminary testing, Pentagon sources tell CNN. Samples being flown to U.S. for confirmation. Details soon.

Here's the details:

Mastrianni said: "They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=1514&e=3&u=/afp/20030407/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030407175243

Once again claims of WOMD are wrong.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
318. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 7, 2003, 14:32 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
CCN- BREAKING NEWS Material found at paramilitary camp in Hindiyah, Iraq, tests positive for chemical-warfare agents in preliminary testing, Pentagon sources tell CNN. Samples being flown to U.S. for confirmation. Details soon.

You liberals better get on all fours....... get ready for Spanker to take you for your ride!

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
317. Re: Illegal WMD Apr 7, 2003, 14:19 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
-Babar Why Iraq, why now? Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years. Why the sudden need to remove him from power? Why aren't we focused on Bin Laden, someone who supposedly orchestrated 9/11, instead of Saddam? Isn't Bin Laden supposed to be a bigger threat to our way of life than Saddam is?

Didn't you get the point of my last post? Are you even reading what I have to say? The reason why we didn't do anything is because we had a democratic President in office! The U.N. had monitors in Rwanda at the time, but they didn't do anything or report anything until blood and body parts started floating down the river. Is any of this getting into you thick skull? The U.N is useless and I'm glad they're going to be taking a back seat to the rebuilding of Iraq.

-Pedle Zelnip There are no winners in war....it may sometimes be necessary...or it might just happen...but no one really wins...

Yes, there is, the Iraq people will be the winners.

-I'd probably be more comfortable with a statement to the effect of "as soon as the US stops behaving irresponsibly" or "as soon as the US stops setting this dangerous precedent of invading without UN consent". So I agree with your position, I just have trouble with the "illegal" label.

The US has a right to defend itself against being attacked, or any other country that it deems as a threat.

It's great they are invading Iraq, the world will now know, not to screw with the US, and that we're not a bunch of pussie like Bin ladin thought we were. We're not just going to lob a few bombs like Clinton did(to take attention away from Monica) we are going to go in and kick some ass. The direct benefit will be that countries will now think twice about supporting terrorism. It doesn't help our resolve to have a bunch of pussies like you arguing over it! This is exactly what the Saddams in this world are hoping for, is a weak resolve that you folks have to defend what you hold dear, you guys would probably turn in your own mothers.

-Of course if in fact Coalition countries such as the US or Britain are in possession of these "illegal" WMD as well, then the whole argument of "we must disarm Saddam, he's got illegal WMD" goes out the window.

The US does not possess any of these bio/chem weapons in their arsenal(other than for research purposes), they are not even on the table. If you think this isn't true send me a link to a factual document disputing this(one that isn't from one of you loony tunes left wing propaganda mags)

P.S. Some peace marchers were shot with rubber bullets cause they were getting violent("peace" marchers<---what a joke), I love that shit.

-Spanker has Spankend, crash and burn you liberal commies!

This comment was edited on Apr 7, 14:23.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
316. Illegal WMD Apr 6, 2003, 04:15 Pedle Zelnip
 
Just wanted to add something that was pointed out to me by someone else, but I've heard that it's not the possesesion of WMD in general that's the reason we're invading, but the fact that there is the claim that he possesses chemical/biological WMD which after the Geneva Convention are supposedly illegal for any country to be in possession of. Unfortunately I can't verify this fact, but it seemed to be relevant to the discussion, so I thought I'd throw it out there (even if this discussion does seem to be dying down again).

Of course if in fact Coalition countries such as the US or Britain are in possesion of these "illegal" WMD as well, then the whole argument of "we must disarm Saddam, he's got illegal WMD" goes out the window.

PZ
This comment was edited on Apr 6, 04:17.
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
315. Re: The coalition is winning -babar Apr 6, 2003, 04:10 Pedle Zelnip
 
babar:

Sure, as soon as the US stops invading their country illegally.

Hmm, I'm not sure that's quite the way I'd put it. I agree with your position (that the US shouldn't be invading Iraq), but I wouldn't put it as being that they're behaving illegally. It depends on how you define legality in an international context. International "law" is a very grey area with a lot of fuzzy edges, so I don't think it's necessarily quite as black and white as "the US is invading, they're behaving illegally".

I'd probably be more comfortable with a statement to the effect of "as soon as the US stops behaving irrepsonsibly" or "as soon as the US stops setting this dangerous precedent of invading without UN consent". So I agree with your position, I just have trouble with the "illegal" label.



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
314. Re: War isn't the answer? Apr 6, 2003, 04:05 Pedle Zelnip
 
Heretic_QPF:

There are no winners in war....it may sometimes be necessary...or it might just happen...but no one really wins...

Absolutely, very well put. And I think many seem to forget this fact.



PZ
 
PZ
------------
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
313. Re: Rowanda ?!!! Apr 5, 2003, 12:27 babar
 
Do you honestly think that the Libertarians had anything at all to do with Clinton's decision? The Libertarians may be the 3rd largest political party but they have no political clout at all.

The point, that went flying over your head at mach 10, was that there are bad things going on in the world all the time and the US does nothing about them unless it fits in with our agenda.

Why Iraq, why now? Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years. Why the sudden need to remove him from power? Why aren't we focused on Bin Laden, someone who supposedly orchestrated 9/11, instead of Saddam? Isn't Bin Laden supposed to be a bigger threat to our way of life than Saddam is?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 5.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo