rhino 0 #101 August 27, 2002 I don't think it has anything to do with popularity.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #102 August 27, 2002 An interesting link.[size 2] [/size][size 2]http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=107292[/size] I still haven't been able to find the program makers name but I will. This link is the front cover story on a national British paper today. Interesting. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12148547&method=full&siteid=50143When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antimike 0 #103 August 27, 2002 JEEZ your right I think we ought to wait til he has the capability to blow the hell out of American interests. (Because he is gaining the capability. if you listened to the whole speech & not just cherry pick th parts you want) Then you people can sit there & go why didn't we do something sooner!! The man is evil. the man is going to attack America, How many more Americans need to die before the liberals decide this is serious shit. Bush & Chaney are in charge of defending America, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #104 August 27, 2002 QuoteBush & Chaney are in charge of defending America, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. Fuckin-A... I second and third and forth and fifth that... We need to kill this bastard and do it quick, fast and in a hurry.. Interesting news.. 15 of the 17 hijackers were Saudi's??? And the Prince is meeting with the Pres today to keep oil flowing?? Interesting.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #105 August 27, 2002 >JEEZ your right I think we ought to wait til he has the capability to > blow the hell out of American interests. So we don't wait until a country we don't like attacks us. We don't wait until he looks like he might. We don't wait until he even has the means. We attack when a country we don't like looks like, someday soon, they might have weapons? Good god, man! What sort of atrocity _can't_ you justify with that sort of logic? "Yeah, we killed a few thousands of people in China when we blew up that reactor, but now those Chinese terrorists will never steal the fuel and build a dirty bomb!" >The man is evil. No argument there. So is Mugabe. So is Chavez. So is Khamenei. So is Kim Jong Il. Are we going to invade Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iraq next? Presumably we'll hold off on North Korea for a while since we just sold them some nuclear reactors. >the man is going to attack America . . . . Again, all the above people have expressed outright hostility towards the US. In fact, we just sold one of them a few reactors that can be used to make nuclear weapons, which is more than Iraq has. When are we attacking them? >How many more Americans need to die before the liberals decide > this is serious shit. Bush & Chaney are in charge of defending > America, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. Right, invade Iraq! That way hundreds of american servicemen and thousands of innocent Iraquis can die! But since they will be dying while killing other people, I suppose that's better than maybe, perhaps, theoretically dying when a weapon that Hussein doesn't have does or doesn't go off somewhere. Maybe. But whatever you do, don't go to congress before you declare war! That would let the US government have a say, and well, the people might have a voice. Can't have that, even though they are the ones who might be at risk for a terrorist attack. They might disagree with our king. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #106 August 27, 2002 Antimike, I don't think things are nearly that simple. The fact that we go wherever we want and do whatever we want is one of the causes of the anger directed against us. We aren't always the friendliest country around. Going to war against another nation because we think someone may do something sometime is a pretty weak justification. It reaffirms our bully status in the eyes of the world. However, I don't think we should sit by and do nothing. I just don't think we should take it upon ourselves to do it all alone, all the time. If there were more unilateral support for action, it would be much more feasible. I think the current administration is over-anxious to use military muscle, but woefully lacking in the art of international consensus building. When we act alone (or even with the ever-willing British), it easily gets twisted to appear like the usual folks are "bombing the poor arabs and threatening islam", which is equally ridiculous rhetoric from the other side. But with the absence of any proof to the contrary, it appears to the arab eye to be true. The Gulf War (partially) worked because there an international coalition. It doesn't matter if we are the majority of the force. The key is the unity among nations to solve a world crisis. We didn't go far enough, or finish things completely, but that type of international backing is what is required to have a truly successful effect in this situation. The "We are the United States, so we'll damned well do what we want" attitude only hurts us and our cause in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #107 August 27, 2002 QuoteAre we going to invade Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iraq next? We were accused of facilitating the recent Coup. I'm not convinced that we did...but some there like that political angle. QuoteSo we don't wait until a country we don't like attacks us He attacks us all the time. Do you have any idea how many times per month he shoots at US planes in the "no fly zones." Even have a guess at how many bombs we drop per quarter on Iraqi targets. I don't know now but I know numbers I can't share from 2000. It's certainly a hell of a lot more than you hear about on the news. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #108 August 27, 2002 QuoteGoing to war against another nation because we think someone may do something sometime is a pretty weak justification. It reaffirms our bully status in the eyes of the world. We have accepted the responsibility of being the worlds 911 force. We have already pissed off those we are going to piss off. Now it is a matter of protecting the FREE world. Fighting terror. Saddham in RECENT history has gassed his own people. He has tried to take over another country. He has been a dictator. Like Hitler and Stahlin. "spelling?" With our knowledge of what he is attempting to build, what he has built we HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE but to remove him from power.. We aren't attacking IRAQ per say. We are removing a repressive dictator from power that has no regard for live whatsoever. We have a responsibility to act against this person not only for our own people but for the worlds future. We won't be doing this alone.. We will have plenty of help. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antimike 0 #109 August 27, 2002 . We attack when a country soon might have weapons? *** Damn Right ***So is Mugabe. So is Chavez. So is Khamenei. So is Kim Jong Il. Are we going to invade Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iraq next? I don't believe , Venezuela or Zimbabwe has the means to attack America, Why not use a more Realistic comparison! If North Korea starts obtaining the means for Mass destruction. YES Hasn't anybody learned anything from a year ago or is your anger fading and the lives that were lost are just numbers now. America has been passive for to long. If we get threatened we need to act first. i for one am still furious about what happened last sept. I for one still can't believe what happened and still morn for the people who went to work & never came home. I for one still morn for the firefighters who bravely went in to help innocent American Civilians and never came out. MY GOD MAN how can YOU be so DAMN passive. Do you think the taliban did that alone or with money the had in their piggy banks. We will find out who is involved in this conspiracy and their will be HELL to pay. There is a separation of powers for a reason. And the President of our Country has certain powers he can implement without Congressional approval for a reason. UH like NATIONAL SECURITY. The same people who are saying slow down about Iraq are the same ones blaming Bush for not doing anything about the taliban sooner. there also the same people who were quoted saying that if the economy will just continue its downwarrd spiral that they can pick up 10-12 seats in congress in Nov. What a sick group. They care nothing about American citizens they just want to pout that they lost an election. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #110 August 27, 2002 Rhino, I have no love for the Iraqi government, and wish we'd done a better job in the first place. But there is some serious irony in what you say. QuoteNow it is a matter of protecting the FREE world. They are just "protecting the Islamic world". Totally different, of course. QuoteHe has been a dictator. Like.. umm... a leader that says he doesn't need approval from his Congress before attacking another country. QuoteHe has tried to take over another country. And we just bomb other countries. That's a relief. QuoteWe aren't attacking IRAQ per say. We are removing a repressive dictator from power that has no regard for live whatsoever. And by fighting us back, they are only trying to remove a foriegn opressor from their sacred sovriegn soil. "Right" is in the eyes of the individual. They think they are right too. QuoteWe won't be doing this alone I hope not. Quote.. We will have plenty of help. I hope so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seedy 0 #111 August 27, 2002 QuoteHe has been a dictator. Like.. umm... a leader that says he doesn't need approval from his Congress before attacking another country. Not really entering this debate. Just want to point out that one of these people can be impeached, the other can't. Like comparing apples and oranges. I intend to live forever -- so far, so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #112 August 27, 2002 Quotecomparing apples and oranges. Discrepancy noted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #113 August 27, 2002 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He has been a dictator. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like.. umm... a leader that says he doesn't need approval from his Congress before attacking another country. Not a realistic comparison.. But you are entitled to your opinion.. QuoteAnd we just bomb other countries. That's a relief. No.. Not that simple.. We don't "just" bomb anyone. Common.. Rather than trying to get a rise out of people and defend Mr. Insane I mean Hussein think about what you are saying. I totally support what Uncle Sam is doing.. We ELECTED the president. He HAS the authority to make those decisions. I don't know if Saddham was elected or not but I know his people don't have the option to oust a president the way Americans do if they don't like the decisions he is making. Of course they are going to "defend" their soil. The dictator will kill them if they don't. They just want to stay alive... Their is no comparison what so ever.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #114 August 27, 2002 QuoteWe ELECTED the president. I didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. QuoteHe HAS the authority to make those decisions. That's currently being debated. If this were any other country he would need congressional approval. However he's counting on the approval that was given to his father back in 1990 to attack. I think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites antimike 0 #115 August 27, 2002 QuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted See previos post about pouting. QuoteI think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. The year this was complete would be 2010 and raq would be a super power Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #116 August 27, 2002 QuoteI think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The year this was complete would be 2010 and raq would be a super power [sarcasm] Yeah! That damned due process. That stupid system of checks and balances in government. Let's just burn that dumb Constitution and Bill of Rights. We might as well toss those stupid inconvenient Amendments while we are at it. Let's just get us a dictator! [/sarcasm] When we are willing to throw away what we stand for in order of expediency, is what we are worth defending? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #117 August 27, 2002 >We have accepted the responsibility of being the worlds 911 force. Which is sort of like the Palestinians claiming they are the Middle East's 911 force. I think Israel would disagree, and I think most of the world would disagree that we are the world's cops. Cops without authority, operating in a foreign country, are terrorists. >We have already pissed off those we are going to piss off. Oh, we've shown that that's one of the things we do best. We have not even begun to piss people off in Venezuela, for example, but I have no fear we will figure out a way to do that real soon now. I know, Chavez is a bad guy and all, but one lesson most people learn early on in life is that the best way to "beat" that schoolyard bully is to ignore him, graduate, be successful, then come back ten years later and watch him pump gas. If we try to beat up all the bullies, we risk three things: 1. We play by his rules, and he makes the rules 2. We become the bully if we beat up enough people 3. Someday, we might even lose the fight, especially if a lot of other people decide to take down the biggest bully. >Now it is a matter of protecting the FREE world. Fighting terror. > Saddham in RECENT history has gassed his own people. Oh please. We gave him military support while he was doing that! Now it's a reason to annhiliate him, instead of support him? We should really make up our minds. >We aren't attacking IRAQ per say. We are removing a repressive >dictator from power that has no regard for live whatsoever. By killing thousands of the people we are going to "protect?" I suspect if it was put to a vote the people of Iraq would prefer to live, rather than be killed by a stray US bomb - even if the bomb was dropped with the best of intentions. In fact, if we attack, there will be plenty of evidence that _we_ are the ones who have no regard for human life whatsoever. >We won't be doing this alone.. We will have plenty of help. Then let's get it together before we go. Go to the UN. Form a coalition _before_ we attack. Get the arab world behind us. Prove his atrocities, get him up on war crimes, then go in with the world supporting us. Right not not even the US congress supports Bush. On the other hand - what if we try to gather support and no one, not even the US government, agrees with the use of that amount of force? What if the consensus of the US, the UN, and indeed the world is that there are better ways to stop Hussein? What then? Would that indicate that Bush is right, and the US, UN and the entire rest of the world is wrong, or vice versa? Personally, I'd like to be able to figure that out _before_ we invade again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #118 August 27, 2002 QuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #119 August 27, 2002 >I don't believe , Venezuela or Zimbabwe has the means to attack > America . . . . Neither does Iraq. They have no navy, no air force. >If North Korea starts obtaining the means for Mass destruction. YES Oh, they do - we just sold them two reactors. >Hasn't anybody learned anything from a year ago or is your anger > fading and the lives that were lost are just numbers now. Some of us have memories longer than a year. We can remember back a decade to the last war with Iraq - did that stop 9/11? Did it oust Hussein? Did it stop terrorism? No? Then why do you think we'll do any better this time? >America has been passive for to long. 11 years is way too long? Right - we need to be more like Israel, with terrorists hitting us every week and us invading a few days later. That's worked well. Do you really want to use Israel as an example of how you'd like to live? >If we get threatened we need to act first. i for one am still furious >about what happened last sept. I for one still can't believe what > happened and still morn for the people who went to work & never > came home. Me too, and Sept. 11th hit home very close to me, since I was within 20 minutes of getting on AA flight 11 that morning. However, we went to war with Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. We failed because they are not a country, they are a loose organization that ran away when we invaded. >Do you think the taliban did that alone or with money the had in > their piggy banks. Nope, they got it from us. We gave Al Quaeda billions of dollars and tons of weapons in the 80's. Want to do that again? Want to make sure we have another 9/11 in ten years? I'd prefer not to do that. >The same people who are saying slow down about Iraq are the same > ones blaming Bush for not doing anything about the taliban sooner. Not me. I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda. (The taliban, BTW, did not attack the US; they just happened to be the country Al Quaeda was based in.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #120 August 27, 2002 >Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Uh, no, Rhino. Electoral college rules. The majority of the US population who voted chose Gore; the majority of electors voted for Bush. That's how the system of voting in the US works. You may not like it, but then you don't vote anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #121 August 27, 2002 QuoteSo we don't wait until a country we don't like attacks us. We don't wait until he looks like he might. We don't wait until he even has the means. We attack when a country we don't like looks like, someday soon, they might have weapons? Good god, man! What sort of atrocity _can't_ you justify with that sort of logic? "Yeah, we killed a few thousands of people in China when we blew up that reactor, but now those Chinese terrorists will never steal the fuel and build a dirty bomb!" So when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until he fires to defend yourself? Maybe you wait until he starts to raise the gun or wait until he points the gun at you. The problem is if you wait until he starts to attack you then you are going to be late in your defense. If we are going to defend ourselves then I prefer it be before another 9/11, or Khobar Towers, or USS Cole, or embassy bomb. There is volumes of information out there showing that Iraq is training terrorists, funding terrorists, and attacking US and British aircraft that are enforcing the No Fly Zone that Iraq agreed to after the Gulf War. They also agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors in and haven't budged on that issue until the US started rattling sabers about going to war with them. What should we wait for to prove that they are a threat to the US and our interests? Maybe if they sent a plane over here with the Iraqi flag emblazoned on the underside and dropped a bomb that said "kill all Americans" while playing the Iraqi National Anthem people would get the point. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #122 August 27, 2002 QuoteQuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Ummm... Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV Gore 50,996,116 48 % 21 266 Bush 50,456,169 48 % 30 271 Other 3,874,040 4 % 0 0 Not to bring up this debate again, just refuting your earlier statement that majority rules. In this case, it doesn't, and the majority did NOT win the presidency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #123 August 27, 2002 QuoteWhich is sort of like the Palestinians claiming they are the Middle East's 911 force. I think Israel would disagree, and I think most of the world would disagree that we are the world's cops. Cops without authority, operating in a foreign country, are terrorists. I don't think Americans are walking onto busses with dynamite and nails strapped to themselves. No comparison. Quote3. Someday, we might even lose the fight, especially if a lot of other people decide to take down the biggest bully. The "civilized" world so to speak knows we aren't being a bully. And if they don't like what we are doing they can swing their sticks.. Ours is a bigger stick and we will win.. It will allways be that way. Part of what makes America great is the freedom.. The freedom to kick whomevers ass that threatens the free world so to speak. "little sarcasm there" lol QuoteOh please. We gave him military support while he was doing that! Now it's a reason to annhiliate him, instead of support him? We should really make up our minds. We learned.. He is out of hand and now "we" have to deal with him.. QuoteBy killing thousands of the people we are going to "protect?" I suspect if it was put to a vote the people of Iraq would prefer to live, rather than be killed by a stray US bomb - even if the bomb was dropped with the best of intentions. In fact, if we attack, there will be plenty of evidence that _we_ are the ones who have no regard for human life whatsoever. Sometimes you have to kill a few to save the many. That's life.. His Army will surely pay the price.. They don't really have a choice.. Die by the firing squad or die fighting for something half of them don't want to be doing in the first place. Most of them chose to die fighting I think. QuoteThen let's get it together before we go. Go to the UN. Form a coalition _before_ we attack. Get the arab world behind us. Prove his atrocities, get him up on war crimes, then go in with the world supporting us. Right not not even the US congress supports Bush. For the sake of US Intelligence Congress doesn't know what the President and his advisors know. So how can they make an educated decision. The white house can't tell congress everything.. American servicemen and woman would die by the swarms if the important intelligence the president is acting on gets out.. They know something "we" don't know. That is why we are acting.. That is why a Saudi prince is in the US.. Someone is waking up and smelling the coffee.. Their is going to be an ASSWHIPPING going on very soon.. Saddham's days are numbered. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #124 August 27, 2002 QuoteSo when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until he fires to defend yourself? I think Bill's point is that they don't have the gun in their hand. To use your analogy...if someone says, I'm going to see if I can get a gun somehow and then try to wound you with it, do you shoot them right then and there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,114 #125 August 27, 2002 >So when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in >his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until > he fires to defend yourself? No. You wait until you are threatened. If he says he's going to shoot you, but he's a mile away, doesn't seem to have a gun and can't get to you, it's not OK to get a sniper rifle and take him out "in self defense." If he approaches carrying a gun? Then by all means blow him away. Right now Hussein has no navy. He has no effective air force. No long range bombers. No nuclear weapons. If he ever does launch a bomber towards the US, blow it up and then blow him to bits. Of course it won't even get through the no-fly zone, so we'd have a bit of time to do that. But until he does that he's just another international bully, no different from Chavez or Mugabe. They can't reach us either. Now, of course, terrorists _can_ reach us - Al Quaeda could someday build a dirty bomb in the US and blow it up. We just had a war in Afghanistan to try to get their leader. Notice that despite our best efforts we failed. Why do you think we'll be more successful in Iraq? >If we are going to defend ourselves then I prefer it be before > another 9/11, or Khobar Towers, or USS Cole, or embassy bomb. Did the last War Against Iraq stop 9/11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 10 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rhino 0 #113 August 27, 2002 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He has been a dictator. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like.. umm... a leader that says he doesn't need approval from his Congress before attacking another country. Not a realistic comparison.. But you are entitled to your opinion.. QuoteAnd we just bomb other countries. That's a relief. No.. Not that simple.. We don't "just" bomb anyone. Common.. Rather than trying to get a rise out of people and defend Mr. Insane I mean Hussein think about what you are saying. I totally support what Uncle Sam is doing.. We ELECTED the president. He HAS the authority to make those decisions. I don't know if Saddham was elected or not but I know his people don't have the option to oust a president the way Americans do if they don't like the decisions he is making. Of course they are going to "defend" their soil. The dictator will kill them if they don't. They just want to stay alive... Their is no comparison what so ever.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #114 August 27, 2002 QuoteWe ELECTED the president. I didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. QuoteHe HAS the authority to make those decisions. That's currently being debated. If this were any other country he would need congressional approval. However he's counting on the approval that was given to his father back in 1990 to attack. I think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
antimike 0 #115 August 27, 2002 QuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted See previos post about pouting. QuoteI think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. The year this was complete would be 2010 and raq would be a super power Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #116 August 27, 2002 QuoteI think the situation is different now and should be revisited by our elected representatives and not based on the beliefs of a single man. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The year this was complete would be 2010 and raq would be a super power [sarcasm] Yeah! That damned due process. That stupid system of checks and balances in government. Let's just burn that dumb Constitution and Bill of Rights. We might as well toss those stupid inconvenient Amendments while we are at it. Let's just get us a dictator! [/sarcasm] When we are willing to throw away what we stand for in order of expediency, is what we are worth defending? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #117 August 27, 2002 >We have accepted the responsibility of being the worlds 911 force. Which is sort of like the Palestinians claiming they are the Middle East's 911 force. I think Israel would disagree, and I think most of the world would disagree that we are the world's cops. Cops without authority, operating in a foreign country, are terrorists. >We have already pissed off those we are going to piss off. Oh, we've shown that that's one of the things we do best. We have not even begun to piss people off in Venezuela, for example, but I have no fear we will figure out a way to do that real soon now. I know, Chavez is a bad guy and all, but one lesson most people learn early on in life is that the best way to "beat" that schoolyard bully is to ignore him, graduate, be successful, then come back ten years later and watch him pump gas. If we try to beat up all the bullies, we risk three things: 1. We play by his rules, and he makes the rules 2. We become the bully if we beat up enough people 3. Someday, we might even lose the fight, especially if a lot of other people decide to take down the biggest bully. >Now it is a matter of protecting the FREE world. Fighting terror. > Saddham in RECENT history has gassed his own people. Oh please. We gave him military support while he was doing that! Now it's a reason to annhiliate him, instead of support him? We should really make up our minds. >We aren't attacking IRAQ per say. We are removing a repressive >dictator from power that has no regard for live whatsoever. By killing thousands of the people we are going to "protect?" I suspect if it was put to a vote the people of Iraq would prefer to live, rather than be killed by a stray US bomb - even if the bomb was dropped with the best of intentions. In fact, if we attack, there will be plenty of evidence that _we_ are the ones who have no regard for human life whatsoever. >We won't be doing this alone.. We will have plenty of help. Then let's get it together before we go. Go to the UN. Form a coalition _before_ we attack. Get the arab world behind us. Prove his atrocities, get him up on war crimes, then go in with the world supporting us. Right not not even the US congress supports Bush. On the other hand - what if we try to gather support and no one, not even the US government, agrees with the use of that amount of force? What if the consensus of the US, the UN, and indeed the world is that there are better ways to stop Hussein? What then? Would that indicate that Bush is right, and the US, UN and the entire rest of the world is wrong, or vice versa? Personally, I'd like to be able to figure that out _before_ we invade again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #118 August 27, 2002 QuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #119 August 27, 2002 >I don't believe , Venezuela or Zimbabwe has the means to attack > America . . . . Neither does Iraq. They have no navy, no air force. >If North Korea starts obtaining the means for Mass destruction. YES Oh, they do - we just sold them two reactors. >Hasn't anybody learned anything from a year ago or is your anger > fading and the lives that were lost are just numbers now. Some of us have memories longer than a year. We can remember back a decade to the last war with Iraq - did that stop 9/11? Did it oust Hussein? Did it stop terrorism? No? Then why do you think we'll do any better this time? >America has been passive for to long. 11 years is way too long? Right - we need to be more like Israel, with terrorists hitting us every week and us invading a few days later. That's worked well. Do you really want to use Israel as an example of how you'd like to live? >If we get threatened we need to act first. i for one am still furious >about what happened last sept. I for one still can't believe what > happened and still morn for the people who went to work & never > came home. Me too, and Sept. 11th hit home very close to me, since I was within 20 minutes of getting on AA flight 11 that morning. However, we went to war with Afghanistan to try to get Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. We failed because they are not a country, they are a loose organization that ran away when we invaded. >Do you think the taliban did that alone or with money the had in > their piggy banks. Nope, they got it from us. We gave Al Quaeda billions of dollars and tons of weapons in the 80's. Want to do that again? Want to make sure we have another 9/11 in ten years? I'd prefer not to do that. >The same people who are saying slow down about Iraq are the same > ones blaming Bush for not doing anything about the taliban sooner. Not me. I blame Reagan for _creating_ Al Quaeda. (The taliban, BTW, did not attack the US; they just happened to be the country Al Quaeda was based in.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #120 August 27, 2002 >Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Uh, no, Rhino. Electoral college rules. The majority of the US population who voted chose Gore; the majority of electors voted for Bush. That's how the system of voting in the US works. You may not like it, but then you don't vote anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #121 August 27, 2002 QuoteSo we don't wait until a country we don't like attacks us. We don't wait until he looks like he might. We don't wait until he even has the means. We attack when a country we don't like looks like, someday soon, they might have weapons? Good god, man! What sort of atrocity _can't_ you justify with that sort of logic? "Yeah, we killed a few thousands of people in China when we blew up that reactor, but now those Chinese terrorists will never steal the fuel and build a dirty bomb!" So when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until he fires to defend yourself? Maybe you wait until he starts to raise the gun or wait until he points the gun at you. The problem is if you wait until he starts to attack you then you are going to be late in your defense. If we are going to defend ourselves then I prefer it be before another 9/11, or Khobar Towers, or USS Cole, or embassy bomb. There is volumes of information out there showing that Iraq is training terrorists, funding terrorists, and attacking US and British aircraft that are enforcing the No Fly Zone that Iraq agreed to after the Gulf War. They also agreed to allow UN weapons inspectors in and haven't budged on that issue until the US started rattling sabers about going to war with them. What should we wait for to prove that they are a threat to the US and our interests? Maybe if they sent a plane over here with the Iraqi flag emblazoned on the underside and dropped a bomb that said "kill all Americans" while playing the Iraqi National Anthem people would get the point. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #122 August 27, 2002 QuoteQuoteI didn't. Neither did the majority of people who voted. Majority rules. Majority won the presidency.. Ummm... Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV Gore 50,996,116 48 % 21 266 Bush 50,456,169 48 % 30 271 Other 3,874,040 4 % 0 0 Not to bring up this debate again, just refuting your earlier statement that majority rules. In this case, it doesn't, and the majority did NOT win the presidency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #123 August 27, 2002 QuoteWhich is sort of like the Palestinians claiming they are the Middle East's 911 force. I think Israel would disagree, and I think most of the world would disagree that we are the world's cops. Cops without authority, operating in a foreign country, are terrorists. I don't think Americans are walking onto busses with dynamite and nails strapped to themselves. No comparison. Quote3. Someday, we might even lose the fight, especially if a lot of other people decide to take down the biggest bully. The "civilized" world so to speak knows we aren't being a bully. And if they don't like what we are doing they can swing their sticks.. Ours is a bigger stick and we will win.. It will allways be that way. Part of what makes America great is the freedom.. The freedom to kick whomevers ass that threatens the free world so to speak. "little sarcasm there" lol QuoteOh please. We gave him military support while he was doing that! Now it's a reason to annhiliate him, instead of support him? We should really make up our minds. We learned.. He is out of hand and now "we" have to deal with him.. QuoteBy killing thousands of the people we are going to "protect?" I suspect if it was put to a vote the people of Iraq would prefer to live, rather than be killed by a stray US bomb - even if the bomb was dropped with the best of intentions. In fact, if we attack, there will be plenty of evidence that _we_ are the ones who have no regard for human life whatsoever. Sometimes you have to kill a few to save the many. That's life.. His Army will surely pay the price.. They don't really have a choice.. Die by the firing squad or die fighting for something half of them don't want to be doing in the first place. Most of them chose to die fighting I think. QuoteThen let's get it together before we go. Go to the UN. Form a coalition _before_ we attack. Get the arab world behind us. Prove his atrocities, get him up on war crimes, then go in with the world supporting us. Right not not even the US congress supports Bush. For the sake of US Intelligence Congress doesn't know what the President and his advisors know. So how can they make an educated decision. The white house can't tell congress everything.. American servicemen and woman would die by the swarms if the important intelligence the president is acting on gets out.. They know something "we" don't know. That is why we are acting.. That is why a Saudi prince is in the US.. Someone is waking up and smelling the coffee.. Their is going to be an ASSWHIPPING going on very soon.. Saddham's days are numbered. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #124 August 27, 2002 QuoteSo when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until he fires to defend yourself? I think Bill's point is that they don't have the gun in their hand. To use your analogy...if someone says, I'm going to see if I can get a gun somehow and then try to wound you with it, do you shoot them right then and there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #125 August 27, 2002 >So when are we allowed to defend ourselves? If a man has a gun in >his hand and says he is going to kill you, do you have to wait until > he fires to defend yourself? No. You wait until you are threatened. If he says he's going to shoot you, but he's a mile away, doesn't seem to have a gun and can't get to you, it's not OK to get a sniper rifle and take him out "in self defense." If he approaches carrying a gun? Then by all means blow him away. Right now Hussein has no navy. He has no effective air force. No long range bombers. No nuclear weapons. If he ever does launch a bomber towards the US, blow it up and then blow him to bits. Of course it won't even get through the no-fly zone, so we'd have a bit of time to do that. But until he does that he's just another international bully, no different from Chavez or Mugabe. They can't reach us either. Now, of course, terrorists _can_ reach us - Al Quaeda could someday build a dirty bomb in the US and blow it up. We just had a war in Afghanistan to try to get their leader. Notice that despite our best efforts we failed. Why do you think we'll be more successful in Iraq? >If we are going to defend ourselves then I prefer it be before > another 9/11, or Khobar Towers, or USS Cole, or embassy bomb. Did the last War Against Iraq stop 9/11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
