Iraq: A rant from a Canadian

[Shrapnel]

I don't have time to debate or argue anymore but I cannot resist the urge to throw my 2 cents into this whole debacle.

France that truly offends me right now. It is not the people I hate but the policy of the country.
They are letting Mugabe visit. It makes complete sense to let someone like him in with their anti-US view and 'let's let Saddam be' policy.

I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

The situation in Iraq is parallel. The people there don't like Saddam but they can't do anything about it.
The ones that do like Saddam are the ones that receive benefits for being pro-Saddam. Those of us living in a a free world where you can protest freely don't understand how impossible it is to protest in a society without free speech.

All the anti-war arguments I read have the same hollow message: War is bad.

Well no shit. No one likes to see people dying. But this isn't a black and white issue.

Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?
Look how they turned out. Much better than the expansionistic empire that sought to enslave Asia they were before. Japan tortured countless citizens during the war. Japan's attitude changed once the US dealt with its political structure.
Now this is not a 1 to 1 parallel to Iraq and I realize this so arguing it will just be a waste of your time.

Now Iraq tortures and executes to silence dissenters. If Saddam really cared about his people, he'd submit to UN. It's about his ego. Everyone talks about Bush being crazy. What about Saddam? Look at his track record. That guy only wants to fulfill his ego. Bush, although everyone accuses him of political gain, is actually in the right for once. Sure he may not be the best man for president and he's far from eloquent but is stopping a totalitarian regime wrong?

Are we supposed to let a country with extreme views that could threaten the security of the world get away?

You all preach history but have you all forgotten how the USA held back while the Nazis stormed Europe?
Instead of jumping in earlier, the US jumped in late... maximizing the loss of life.

I suppose the logic is to wait for Saddam to threaten our borders before we take action.

I'm sick of everyone who preaches against war like a fashion statement. Your arguments are usually hollow and satisfy teenage rebellion psychology. You all forget what kind of freedoms your parent, the USA, gives you.

Then there's the group that preaches Vietnam as a 'mistake'. You know what the mistake was? Protesters and gov't officials that agreed not to invade Vietnam and hold off the border.
That's why the US lost the war in Vietnam. Because of idiots who said we couldn't invade North Vietnam. Of course you're going to lose a war if you just hold off the border.

That's what the world has been trying to do to Saddam.
They've been trying to contain Saddam with sanctions and a bunch of red tape.
Well it's obviously not working. He's still going to make weapons and oppress his people. His people starve while he feasts in his palace. Just because he hasn't been in the spotlight for the past 10 or so years doesn't mean he's gotten better or changed his ways.

If the US doesn't police the world... who will? Who will defend the innocent? I'm not saying the US always makes the right decisions.
Nor am I saying this is a black and white issue....
What I am saying is that the US has good intentions.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one. Although Bush has poor timing in pressing for a war with Iraq and the arguments seem weak, I do not see his decision as being 100% wrong as many of you state.

I do not ask you guys to agree with me but rather argue points beyond 'Bush is dumb' 'War is bad'.

I am a Canadian and a soldier and I fully support our ally, the United States of America.

Have a nice day everyone.

[Alakazam]

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote:

I'm sick of everyone who preaches against war like a fashion statement. Your arguments are usually hollow and satisfy teenage rebellion psychology. You all forget what kind of freedoms your parent, the USA, gives you. :

I just have to say that this paragraph is priceless. One could not have stated it so plainly and truthfully.

If the US doesn't police the world... who will? Who will defend the innocent? :

Nobody. If we [the United States] threw up our hands and said "I don't care anymore...you have a problem, then take it to someone else", we would still be ridiculed because we didn't do anything. Nations are just like people...we have our self-interests when we get involved in conflicts. Usually, it is for the better.

[JMHX]

You don't count because you're Canadian.

[TheloniousMONK]

At 2/17/03 02:18 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: You don't count because you're Canadian.

You don't count because all you have to say is "BUSH LIX BALLZ MMK."

Seriously, you totally fit the mold of a person Shrapnel was writing about.

It's pathetic.

[Slizor]

I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

I've visited many former oppressive countries Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Italy, Greece(That's all the places I have been.)

Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

What about now in Afghanistan? It has pretty much stayed the same apart from the offical ruler has changed, oh and the oil companies can now uild their pipelines.

You're confusing two issues, the spreading of democracy and the removal of Saddam. The anti-war people want both, but they have no idea how to remove Saddam. On the other hand the pro-war also want both, but they have no idea how to spread democracy, well the intelligent ones. You have heard of the plans for Iraq? A military ruler who will "rebuild" Iraq and allow democracy to flourish. Yeah..right.

but is stopping a totalitarian regime wrong?

Depends, you can take two views, one is that every nation is a sovereign nation that can do what it wants. The other is the every nation should submit to a supranational body(like the UN) and can only do what it says. The US wants the former for itself and the latter for everyone else.

Are we supposed to let a country with extreme views that could threaten the security of the world get away?

Yeah, let's bomb America!

You all preach history but have you all forgotten how the USA held back while the Nazis stormed Europe?
Instead of jumping in earlier, the US jumped in late... maximizing the loss of life.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's.

I suppose the logic is to wait for Saddam to threaten our borders before we take action.

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit.

I'm sick of everyone who preaches against war like a fashion statement. Your arguments are usually hollow and satisfy teenage rebellion psychology. You all forget what kind of freedoms your parent, the USA, gives you.

And you forget that American people fought for those freedoms. Your view that the Iraqi people would be "free" is also very niave.

Then there's the group that preaches Vietnam as a 'mistake'. You know what the mistake was? Protesters and gov't officials that agreed not to invade Vietnam and hold off the border.
That's why the US lost the war in Vietnam. Because of idiots who said we couldn't invade North Vietnam. Of course you're going to lose a war if you just hold off the border.

Vietnam should never have happened, America had nothing to do with Vietnam, same with Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Cuba, Honduras, Korea, etc etc.

If the US doesn't police the world... who will?

A reformed, democratic UN, one that can actually preach of spreading democracy non-hypocratically.

Who will defend the innocent? I'm not saying the US always makes the right decisions.

Damn straight, the US kills the innocent most of the time.

Nor am I saying this is a black and white issue....
What I am saying is that the US has good intentions.

Yeah and George Bush has an IQ over 10!

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat?

[Alakazam]

At 2/17/03 03:42 PM, Slizor wrote:

I've visited many former oppressive countries Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Italy, Greece(That's all the places I have been.) :

WOW. A high school kid that visited countries that were oppressed in what century?

Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

What about now in Afghanistan? It has pretty much stayed the same :

WOW. I guess you think things can just fix themselves overnight. Say Terry, why don't you use your magic wand?

You're confusing two issues, the spreading of democracy and the removal of Saddam. The anti-war people want both, but they have no idea how to remove Saddam. On the other hand the pro-war also want both, but they have no idea how to spread democracy, well the intelligent ones. You have heard of the plans for Iraq? A military ruler who will "rebuild" Iraq and allow democracy to flourish. Yeah..right. :

WOW. I don't see anything wrong with having a military leader in control of Iraq in the interim.
I guess it is easy to be critical and at the same time offer no alternative. That's really smart Terry. :

but is stopping a totalitarian regime wrong? :

Depends, you can take two views, one is that every nation is a sovereign nation that can do what it wants. :

Yeah, I guess you are right. Saddam had every right to gas his own people. He has a right to toture political prisoners. He had a right to invade other countries. Hell, Saddam has a right to have WoMD and be a security issue to the entire region.

Yeah, let's bomb America! :

Appeal to Mockery.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's. :

Come again? The consequences of Saddams's actions would be worse....in a pre-WoMD era? You absolutely amaze me Terry!

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit. :

See? You do amaze me Terry! The fundamental difference is Terry, Saddam has NOT come clean of WoMD. He has attacked countries in the past and kills his own people. Nor has he owned up to UN Resolution 1441 which calls for IMMEDIATE disclosure and not this 'give me more time' crap. But you and your 'high school' logic compare this to some petty criminal. A---MAZING!

And you forget that American people fought for those freedoms. Your view that the Iraqi people would be "free" is also very niave. :

So basically you had no counter argument on this point huh Terry? Shrapnel is just 'naive' because you say he is. Utter sweetness in that high school logic. Remove Saddam, set up democracy = free Iraqi people...ALL of them.

Vietnam should never have happened, America had nothing to do with Vietnam... Korea :

Uh huh huh huh. The United States fought those wars to stop the spread of Communism. We did have 'something to do with it.'

A reformed, democratic UN, one that can actually preach of spreading democracy non-hypocratically. :

WOW. Did you magically pull that out of your high school thinking hat? Talk about a wishy washy wannabe solution Terry. Gosh, is it not democratic now? And how would you pray-tell reform the UN? Are they hypocritical because each member has its own self interests? I think we would call that 'REAL LIFE.'

Damn straight, the US kills the innocent most of the time. :

<snicker> If you hinting at civilian casualties, then I really don't care. Although tragic, it will always happen in war. You imply as if we go out of our way to harm civilians. Silly Terry.

Yeah and George Bush has an IQ over 10! :

Which I am sure is higher than yours. <-----Appeal to Mockery.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat? :

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

[Sweden-Forever]

I'm all for it. You have a tyrant who kills his own people. To all you anti-war people out there. Suppose you were in Iraq, under the fear that if you mentioned the wrong thing you would be killed. How would you feel? How about the feeling of hopelesness that the people posses. It's like a kid who's going to get a shot. Sure they squirm and cry but it's needed for them in the long term. Us kicking Iraq's ass is like that shot and even though the people might not like it, they will realize what we had done for them

[Slizor]

How predictable, Alakazam!

I've visited many former oppressive countries Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland, France, Italy, Greece(That's all the places I have been.) :

WOW. A high school kid that visited countries that were oppressed in what century?

Well actually Italy, Ireland, France and Greece have all been oppressed in the 20th Century.

Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

What about now in Afghanistan? It has pretty much stayed the same :

WOW. I guess you think things can just fix themselves overnight. Say Terry, why don't you use your magic wand?

The idea that it is overnight is laughable. They've had a year, nothing has happened, they've justinstalled thier Oil Dictator Hamid Karzai.

You're confusing two issues, the spreading of democracy and the removal of Saddam. The anti-war people want both, but they have no idea how to remove Saddam. On the other hand the pro-war also want both, but they have no idea how to spread democracy, well the intelligent ones. You have heard of the plans for Iraq? A military ruler who will "rebuild" Iraq and allow democracy to flourish. Yeah..right. :

WOW. I don't see anything wrong with having a military leader in control of Iraq in the interim.

Have you noticed interim is not actually a defined period of time?

I guess it is easy to be critical and at the same time offer no alternative. That's really smart Terry. :

I can offer an alternative. A multilateral strike with all countries equally represented, and then administered by a reformed democratic UN. Because I didn't offer an alternative doesn't mean I can't.

but is stopping a totalitarian regime wrong? :

Depends, you can take two views, one is that every nation is a sovereign nation that can do what it wants. :

Yeah, I guess you are right. Saddam had every right to gas his own people. He has a right to toture political prisoners. He had a right to invade other countries. Hell, Saddam has a right to have WoMD and be a security issue to the entire region.

Why do you try to present this as my view? I didn't actually say I supported this view. And he didn't "gas his own people" it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's. :

Come again? The consequences of Saddams's actions would be worse....in a pre-WoMD era?

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read?

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit. :

See? You do amaze me Terry! The fundamental difference is Terry, Saddam has NOT come clean of WoMD. He has attacked countries in the past and kills his own people. Nor has he owned up to UN Resolution 1441 which calls for IMMEDIATE disclosure and not this 'give me more time' crap.

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context.

And you forget that American people fought for those freedoms. Your view that the Iraqi people would be "free" is also very niave. :

So basically you had no counter argument on this point huh Terry? Shrapnel is just 'naive' because you say he is.

Well let's say the American commit to democracy is rhetoric at best, you only need to look at the US's involvement in Latin America to see that.

Vietnam should never have happened, America had nothing to do with Vietnam... Korea :

Uh huh huh huh. The United States fought those wars to stop the spread of Communism. We did have 'something to do with it.'

I don't see what right you have to involve yourself in Civil Wars or democratically elected leaders(see Guetamala.) If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it.

A reformed, democratic UN, one that can actually preach of spreading democracy non-hypocratically. :

WOW. Did you magically pull that out of your high school thinking hat? Talk about a wishy washy wannabe solution Terry. Gosh, is it not democratic now? And how would you pray-tell reform the UN?

Get rid of the 5 permanent memebers with veto power.

Damn straight, the US kills the innocent most of the time. :

<snicker> If you hinting at civilian casualties, then I really don't care. Although tragic, it will always happen in war. You imply as if we go out of our way to harm civilians.

I would never say that! It's not like you carpet bomb countries or use things like "Agent Orange".

Yeah and George Bush has an IQ over 10! :

Which I am sure is higher than yours. <-----Appeal to Mockery.

Mockery ignores your appeal.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat? :

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

[Alakazam]

At 2/17/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote:

Well actually Italy, Ireland, France and Greece have all been oppressed in the 20th Century. :

WOW. And I am so sure you could just identify with countries that have been oppressed exactly when? I am sure you felt their pain and agony right?

The idea that it is overnight is laughable. They've had a year, nothing has happened, they've justinstalled thier Oil Dictator Hamid Karzai. :

Like I said, wave your magic wand since you think only a year to totally rebuild a country that was so damn poor to begin with...is just so painfully slow. Give it up.

Have you noticed interim is not actually a defined period of time? :

Basically you have no other alternative besides a new Iraqi regime under control of a 'miltary leader'. You imply it is a joke but...

I can offer an alternative. A multilateral strike with all countries equally represented, and then administered by a reformed democratic UN. Because I didn't offer an alternative doesn't mean I can't. :

What does this have to do with a new Iraqi government? Cute, so you didn't offer an alternative to the 'military' leader of Iraq.

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read? :

LOL. Perhaps it is your high school education level. Your coherence is painful as it is. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean that Hitler would not suffer 'as bad as consequences' as Saddam.

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context. :

But you have no idea what context is Terry. Considering that he harbors terrorists and lies about WoMD, he is a threat. Does that mean he will directly attack America? No, rather it is our allies and interests in the Middle East. You can argue all you want about Saddam attacking us directly, but this is a red herring nitpick.

Well let's say the American commit to democracy is rhetoric at best, you only need to look at the US's involvement in Latin America to see that. :

BORRRRRING. Who cares about the mistakes that have been made in the past? I sure the hell don't. But you still fail to offer an alternative as always.

If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it. :

Considering Korea and Vietnam were part of the Cold War era, we justified our involvement in these wars. Yeah, we all like communist regimes...they are so democratic.

Get rid of the 5 permanent memebers with veto power. :

Wave that magic wand!

Damn straight, the US kills the innocent most of the time. :

<snicker> If you hinting at civilian casualties, then I really don't care. Although tragic, it will always happen in war. You imply as if we go out of our way to harm civilians.

I would never say that! It's not like you carpet bomb countries or use things like "Agent Orange". :

Then why say it at all Terry...oh...talking from your ass I guess.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat? :

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

LOL! LOL! You know what I really like about you Terry? Is until I came to this board, you had NO idea what a logical fallacy was, although you constantly use them thoughout your "arguments." Is this why you think you are a good debater? Do people honestly think that you are a force to be reckoned with? Spare me. I feel sorry for all the people who think they lost in debates with you. Ayway, considering that Iraq is in breech of UN Resolution 1441, THEY ARE A THREAT and therefore it is not a red herring.

I suggest a college course on logic. It will do you nicely.

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/17/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote:

(Shrapnel) Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

What about now in Afghanistan? It has pretty much stayed the same :

(Alakazam) WOW. I guess you think things can just fix themselves overnight. Say Terry, why don't you use your magic wand?

The idea that it is overnight is laughable. They've had a year, nothing has happened, they've justinstalled thier Oil Dictator Hamid Karzai.

One year is quite a short time. It took several years to establish the government in Japan. Our troops are still in Afghanistan, trying to help the new government get on its feet. We did it in Japan, and we can do it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And he didn't "gas his own people" it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds.

Where exactly did you dig that one up? It seems that you think that "if America said it, it must be false." Everything I've heard about that incident is that Saddam was behind it, not Iran.

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's. :

Come again? The consequences of Saddams's actions would be worse....in a pre-WoMD era?

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read?

You're suggesting that Hitler was able to get away with what he did because there weren't any nations that had nuclear weapons, and thus did not have to fear getting nuked. If Saddam acquired nuclear weapons, he would be able to do what Hitler did, because anyone that nuked him would be nuked back. Besides, France and other European nations seem to want to use the same policy of "appeasement" with Saddam that they used with Hitler. The difference? This time, the United States will have none of it.

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit. :

See? You do amaze me Terry! The fundamental difference is Terry, Saddam has NOT come clean of WoMD. He has attacked countries in the past and kills his own people. Nor has he owned up to UN Resolution 1441 which calls for IMMEDIATE disclosure and not this 'give me more time' crap.

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context.

Please quit ignoring Resolution 1441. Whether you like it or not, it is relevant.

I don't see what right you have to involve yourself in Civil Wars or democratically elected leaders(see Guetamala.) If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it.

We didn't have any business in Vietnam, but that was purely internal, whereas Saddam has threatened his neighbors in the past.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat?

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

Iraq IS a threat to global security. And I ask you one more time, quit ignoring the UN resolution.

Geez, Slizor, you note how predictable Alakazam is, but it seems you are pretty predictable yourself. Just once, can't you concede that we may have a point here?

[MarijuanaClock]

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote: I don't have time to debate or argue anymore but I cannot resist the urge to throw my 2 cents into this whole debacle.

Interesting, hit and run eh?

France that truly offends me right now. It is not the people I hate but the policy of the country.

As opposed to America's policy? Shall we bring up who financed Iraq? Shall we bring up who financed/trained Osama Bin Laden? Shall we bring up the Reagon era? Shall we bring up Bush's current fascist legislation?

They are letting Mugabe visit. It makes complete sense to let someone like him in with their anti-US view and 'let's let Saddam be' policy.

So? ...... http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/lf41/na/may00/nacs0501.htm

I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

Revolution?

The situation in Iraq is parallel. The people there don't like Saddam but they can't do anything about it.

Which explains why the kurds are independant in Iraq?

The ones that do like Saddam are the ones that receive benefits for being pro-Saddam. Those of us living in a a free world where you can protest freely don't understand how impossible it is to protest in a society without free speech.

Your point?

All the anti-war arguments I read have the same hollow message: War is bad.

Well no shit. No one likes to see people dying. But this isn't a black and white issue.

No, an unjust war is wrong. If this were really about "freeing the Iraqi people" why didn't American do it ten years ago? Don't tell me it's about toppling a totalitarian regime. If you can't see America's alterior motives you're blind

There is nothing noble or just about deception.

Oh the US shouldn't invade Iraq or occupy it. What the shit. What was different when the US occupied Japan?

I don't know, let's think on that, maybe a world war?!

Look how they turned out. Much better than the expansionistic empire that sought to enslave Asia they were before. Japan tortured countless citizens during the war. Japan's attitude changed once the US dealt with its political structure.

No, the Japanese are still a ethnocentric people. Secondly they have yet to even recognize the atrocities they commited during World War One.

Now this is not a 1 to 1 parallel to Iraq and I realize this so arguing it will just be a waste of your time.

Why bring it up if it doesn't fit, nor can you defend it?

Now Iraq tortures and executes to silence dissenters. If Saddam really cared about his people, he'd submit to UN. It's about his ego. Everyone talks about Bush being crazy. What about Saddam? Look at his track record. That guy only wants to fulfill his ego. Bush, although everyone accuses him of political gain, is actually in the right for once. Sure he may not be the best man for president and he's far from eloquent but is stopping a totalitarian regime wrong?

As I've stated earlier, if that was America's true motive it would have been accomplished 12 years ago.

Are we supposed to let a country with extreme views that could threaten the security of the world get away?

No, war may not be needed though, why are you in such a rush to kill?

You all preach history but have you all forgotten how the USA held back while the Nazis stormed Europe?
Instead of jumping in earlier, the US jumped in late... maximizing the loss of life.

No ones preaching in-action, but war should be a last resort.

I suppose the logic is to wait for Saddam to threaten our borders before we take action.

Hahahahaha

I'm sick of everyone who preaches against war like a fashion statement. Your arguments are usually hollow and satisfy teenage rebellion psychology. You all forget what kind of freedoms your parent, the USA, gives you.

Parent? What freedoms has America gureenteed Canada? Many countries worked to protect freedom and world peace. The UN worked to protect freedom and world peace. Canada worked to protect freedom and world peace. No one should feel in-debted to America.

Then there's the group that preaches Vietnam as a 'mistake'. You know what the mistake was? Protesters and gov't officials that agreed not to invade Vietnam and hold off the border.

Press. Johnson started the police action over the gulf of token inncident, which was probably fabricated, before there ever was a single protest.

That's why the US lost the war in Vietnam. Because of idiots who said we couldn't invade North Vietnam. Of course you're going to lose a war if you just hold off the border.

What are you on smack? No one wanted the Americans there, they couldn't even control the south.

Besides, if America invaded N Vietnam how do you think China would respond? How did China respind during the Korean War?

That's what the world has been trying to do to Saddam.

Please, check yourself

They've been trying to contain Saddam with sanctions and a bunch of red tape.

Care to look at the current resolutions?

Well it's obviously not working. He's still going to make weapons and oppress his people. His people starve while he feasts in his palace. Just because he hasn't been in the spotlight for the past 10 or so years doesn't mean he's gotten better or changed his ways.

Then why didn't America do somthing 10 years ago?

If the US doesn't police the world... who will? Who will defend the innocent? I'm not saying the US always makes the right decisions.

THE FUCKING UN, it's called collective security.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote: Nor am I saying this is a black and white issue....

Yeas you are

What I am saying is that the US has good intentions.

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one. Although Bush has poor timing in pressing for a war with Iraq and the arguments seem weak, I do not see his decision as being 100% wrong as many of you state.

Then UN isn't going to avoid war if no diplomatic situation can be reached, but the fact is war doesn't have to be used yet

I do not ask you guys to agree with me but rather argue points beyond 'Bush is dumb' 'War is bad'.

I don't argue those points, but war should be a last resort. Personaly I would rather exhuast all other options before we kill 10 000 innocent people. I guess you don't though.

I am a Canadian and a soldier and I fully support our ally, the United States of America.

Ally?! Ally?!! I'm not even going to touch that one.

Have a nice day everyone.

You to.

Another Rant From A Different Canadian:

Look I'm not completly opposed to war, and I'm not anti-war to make some sort of "fashion statement," but when you're dealing with war you have to deal with death. Thats not somthing we should take lightly. I believe Iraq should be stripped of any weapons prohibited by previous UN resolutions, but this does not mean war is needed right away. Just give the UN a chance, give peace a chance. There is still a prospect that the situation can be resolved without military force. The UN is there for a reason, all countries should be able to work witnin the UN to reach a solution. I mean if nothing can be sorted out through the UN then fine, go to war, hell I'll even support it. If you look at opinion polls you will se most people would support military action through the UN. However, what America is doing is not right. For one I question America's motives. I mean why would they mobilize 1/8 of their military to the region before UN inspections were even over? America doesn't want a peaceful solution. Bush said he want's peace, but he has done everything in his power to liable, slander, and hinder UN efforts.

I'm not against war for the simple fact that it's war, I'm against war because I believe war should be a last resort. I value human life, and I do not want the blood of innocent people on my hands. Thats just me though.

Maybe you can pull the trigger without consideration, not me though friend.

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/17/03 09:05 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote: I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

Revolution?

Hard to have a revolution if the government takes away your arms--but that's a different debate entirely.

The situation in Iraq is parallel. The people there don't like Saddam but they can't do anything about it.

Which explains why the kurds are independant in Iraq?

Only because we've established no-fly zones so Saddam can't gas them again.

If this were really about "freeing the Iraqi people" why didn't American do it ten years ago?

We figured he would be toppled by his own people. We were wrong.

Now this is not a 1 to 1 parallel to Iraq and I realize this so arguing it will just be a waste of your time.

Why bring it up if it doesn't fit, nor can you defend it?

I think he meant that while they aren't exactly the same, they are similar.

No ones preaching in-action, but war should be a last resort.

You're right--war is a last resort, and should only be used if diplomacy fails. However, it is my opinion that diplomacy HAS failed, and it has come to war.

The UN worked to protect freedom and world peace. Canada worked to protect freedom and world peace. No one should feel in-debted to America.

The US worked to protect freedom and world peace. The US has done a large amount of that work. Other nations don't exist to serve America, but you don't have to disrespect us either. We've done a large amount of work to preserve freedom. The least you can do is say, "Thanks."

They've been trying to contain Saddam with sanctions and a bunch of red tape.

Care to look at the current resolutions?

Do YOU care to look at the current resolutions? Specifically, the part of 1441 that says that Iraq must show the UN ALL of its weapons or there will be war?

If the US doesn't police the world... who will? Who will defend the innocent? I'm not saying the US always makes the right decisions.

THE FUCKING UN, it's called collective security.

The UN is supposed to be policing the world, but right now, France isn't letting it. If the US must take matters into its own hands, so be it.

[RoboTripper]

I would have to say that diplomacy has not failed at all, but been quite successful. While it did take some threats and cajoling, Saddam has allowed inspectors uninhibited access to the country and then allowed the use of U-2 spy planes over Iraq and private interviews with Iraqi scientists. In addition, the Weapons Inspectors have given the Iraqi government good marks for cooperation, but all you read in the American press is that he has not handed over WoMD, which he might not even have, although he more than likely does. So if the Inspectors are being allowed to do their job and the Iraqis have complied with all their requests, how has diplomacy failed?
Of course, the Bush administration puts a negative spin on the positive happenings of the diplomatic process - "The Iraqis have done everything we asked of them? Stop trying to trick us by being nice or we will kill you!"
Iraq has the attention and scrutiny of the world on them and accordingly is on their very best behavior. Saddam is a misanthrope and a brutal man, but he is not stupid and I would bet he will continue to exercise exemplary behavior while the inspections are ongoing.
Iraq is a large country and the use of U-2 spy planes has just recently been approved. Why not give the inspectors some time to do their job?

[Slizor]

Well actually Italy, Ireland, France and Greece have all been oppressed in the 20th Century. :

WOW. And I am so sure you could just identify with countries that have been oppressed exactly when? I am sure you felt their pain and agony right?

Red herring...again.

I can offer an alternative. A multilateral strike with all countries equally represented, and then administered by a reformed democratic UN. Because I didn't offer an alternative doesn't mean I can't. :

What does this have to do with a new Iraqi government? Cute, so you didn't offer an alternative to the 'military' leader of Iraq.

You really can't read! "administered by a reformed democratic UN" You do understand what administered means, don't you?

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read? :

LOL. Perhaps it is your high school education level. Your coherence is painful as it is. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean that Hitler would not suffer 'as bad as consequences' as Saddam.

Or perhaps it's your inability to understand. Surely you could tell what I was trying to convey from the context?

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context. :

But you have no idea what context is Terry. Considering that he harbors terrorists and lies about WoMD

Lacking in proof...lacking in proof...lacking in proof. I was just experimenting to see that if you repeat somethin over and over people will accept it..it seems to have worked on most Americans, including you. And what is wrong with lieing about WMDs?

he is a threat.

Conclusion based on unsupported premises. Tut tut tut.

Does that mean he will directly attack America? No, rather it is our allies and interests in the Middle East.

Yes...he could attack your allies, much like France could attack Britain.

You can argue all you want about Saddam attacking us directly, but this is a red herring nitpick.

Actually this is a red herring since Shrap was talking about threatening "our borders".

Well let's say the American commit to democracy is rhetoric at best, you only need to look at the US's involvement in Latin America to see that. :

BORRRRRING. Who cares about the mistakes that have been made in the past? I sure the hell don't.

Yet you care about the mistakes Saddam has made in the past...interesting...

If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it. :

Considering Korea and Vietnam were part of the Cold War era, we justified our involvement in these wars.

Hah, there is no justification for involving yourself in the internal affairs of other countries. Cold War or not.

Yeah, we all like communist regimes...they are so democratic.

Red Herring.

Get rid of the 5 permanent members with veto power. :

Wave that magic wand!

You asked how they are undemocratic, that is how they are undemocratic.

Damn straight, the US kills the innocent most of the time. :

<snicker> If you hinting at civilian casualties, then I really don't care. Although tragic, it will always happen in war. You imply as if we go out of our way to harm civilians.

I would never say that! It's not like you carpet bomb countries or use things like "Agent Orange". :

Then why say it at all Terry...oh...talking from your ass I guess.

Obviously sarcasm is above you.

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

LOL! LOL! You know what I really like about you Terry? Is until I came to this board, you had NO idea what a logical fallacy was

I didn't know what a stickman was, I knew what a Red herring was.

Is this why you think you are a good debater?

Ah, that lovely Wall of Arrogance.

Spare me.

Well since you begged!

Ayway, considering that Iraq is in breech of UN Resolution 1441, THEY ARE A THREAT and therefore it is not a red herring.

Your logic is that Iraq is in breach of a UN resolution and therefore are a threat? First of all your premise is unqualified. Secondly I'd just like to follow your line of reasoning, if Iraq is a threat because it is in breach of a UN resolution, is Israel also a threat, being in breach of a helluva a lot of resolutions?

And this is irrelevant, them being in breach of a UN resolution does not mean they are a threat to global security.

Why do you continue in using every "logical fallacy" that you claim everyone else is using?

Alakazam, do you consider me beneath you? Do you consider the rest of the board beneath you?

[Slizor]

The idea that it is overnight is laughable. They've had a year, nothing has happened, they've justinstalled thier Oil Dictator Hamid Karzai.

One year is quite a short time. It took several years to establish the government in Japan. Our troops are still in Afghanistan, trying to help the new government get on its feet. We did it in Japan, and we can do it in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're asking for more time before being judged...how ironic.

And he didn't "gas his own people" it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds.

Where exactly did you dig that one up?

Oh you know my anti-war sources...the New York Times.

It seems that you think that "if America said it, it must be false." Everything I've heard about that incident is that Saddam was behind it, not Iran.

"And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time."

From the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. :D

To compare Saddam to Hitler is ludicrous. It was a pre-WMD, pre-superpower time. The consequences of Hitler's actions would not be as bad as Saddam's. :

Come again? The consequences of Saddams's actions would be worse....in a pre-WoMD era?

Urm...what? I never said that. I said in Hitler's time it was a pre-WMD pre-Superpower time, so Hitler would suffer not as bad consequences. And this is what it says, or can't you read?

You're suggesting that Hitler was able to get away with what he did because there weren't any nations that had nuclear weapons, and thus did not have to fear getting nuked. If Saddam acquired nuclear weapons

Here's your problem, if he acquired.

he would be able to do what Hitler did, because anyone that nuked him would be nuked back.

Not really, Iraq would probably not be able to set up enough sites to be able to retaliate, and at the moment his 188km limit missiles won't be getting most places.

Besides, France and other European nations seem to want to use the same policy of "appeasement" with Saddam that they used with Hitler. The difference? This time, the United States will have none of it.

Actually last time the US had none of it, they kept out of it. There is a big difference between saying "you can have that country" and "we'll give the inspectors more time to find weapons."

Yes...it is. It's like convicting someone of a crime that you aren't sure they were going to commit. :

See? You do amaze me Terry! The fundamental difference is Terry, Saddam has NOT come clean of WoMD. He has attacked countries in the past and kills his own people. Nor has he owned up to UN Resolution 1441 which calls for IMMEDIATE disclosure and not this 'give me more time' crap.

All this is irrelevant to what we are discussing, him attacking AMERICA. Really, you should look at the context.

Please quit ignoring Resolution 1441. Whether you like it or not, it is relevant.

Resolution 1441 is irrelevant to the discussion if Saddam, and by extension Iraq, is a threat to global security.

I don't see what right you have to involve yourself in Civil Wars or democratically elected leaders(see Guetamala.) If Communism wants to spread in other countries America has no right to stop it.

We didn't have any business in Vietnam, but that was purely internal, whereas Saddam has threatened his neighbors in the past.

And how is this relevant?

Economics is a factor but global security is a bigger one.

And Iraq is a threat?

I guess you do not pay attention to the UN material breech huh?

Red herring, we are talking about Iraq being a threat to global security, not the UN resolution.

Iraq IS a threat to global security.

Prove it.

Just once, can't you concede that we may have a point here?

Sure, I'm open-minded, you may have a point.

[Alakazam]

Alakazam: 1

Idiots: 0

[Slizor]

Hmm, interesting Alakazam is declaring victory, as usual. How should I respond? Should I declare victory? Or should I sit back and laugh at Alakazam, user of pop psychology, manufacturer of victories ad the amazing combination of ignorant and arrogant.

I applaude you Alakazam in your "victory". (FYI when something is in speech marks, like above, it casts doubt on the word.)

Now how this relates to this thread I don't know.

[swayside]

At 2/17/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote: I can offer an alternative. A multilateral strike with all countries equally represented, and then administered by a reformed democratic UN.

yeah right. equal representation of countries? that's what's really laughable. i suppose you don't know about what happened with the hostage situation in iran during the carter administration. carter wanted to be all "politically correct" and involve all branches of the military in the operation of rescuing the american hostages. only one branch was needed. it was a disaster. not five minutes after they landed, an aircarft crashed. the mission failed. only until carter was no longer in office were the hostiges let go. they were released the day reagan was inaugurated.

that military was from the same country, how much different do you think "equally represented" countries would interact. there's no way the french would do anything, they've got their eyes on oil more than you accuse bush of doing so. different countries train different military. we can't do what you're implying.

[swayside]

At 2/19/03 03:10 AM, Slizor wrote: Hmm, interesting Alakazam is declaring victory, as usual. How should I respond? Should I declare victory? Or should I sit back and laugh at Alakazam, user of pop psychology, manufacturer of victories ad the amazing combination of ignorant and arrogant.

I applaude you Alakazam in your "victory". (FYI when something is in speech marks, like above, it casts doubt on the word.)

Now how this relates to this thread I don't know.

wow. sattire. the like of which alakazam used on you. feel a little threatened, slizor? or just inadequate...

[DarknessIncarnate]

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote:

I doubt the majority of you have ever visited an oppressive country or lived in one. I have been to China many times and the people I met there didn't like the government but there's nothing they can do about it.

I like the government, I'm chinese and i, frankly, just hate the pollution. the government isn't that bad. if you don't mess with it you're fine. as long as you don't join the "evil" falun dafa cult or be pro democratic you're fine.

But seriously, bot the chinese and falundafaers have problems. some falundafaers are nut cases who'd kill their own children to get acceptance from "god". this religion just seems like christianity gone wrong.

and the chinese...well they do a lot of prisoning and near-death brutal things. if we hadn't screwed every religion that was in china we wouldn't have this problem with crazed killers and military brutality.

...we really shouldn't have screwed taoism, confushism, and buddism....

...or smashed those teapots...we could've sold them to unwitting american collectors...

but it's mainly the fault of the british...if they hadn't sold us the opium in the first place we wouldn't be so screwed up

[JMHX]

At 2/21/03 09:16 PM, DarknessIncarnate wrote:

At 2/17/03 01:26 PM, Shrapnel wrote:

but it's mainly the fault of the british...if they hadn't sold us the opium in the first place we wouldn't be so screwed up

Oooh yeah blame the British!

[Alakazam]

At 2/21/03 08:55 PM, swayside wrote:

wow. sattire. the like of which alakazam used on you. feel a little threatened, slizor? or just inadequate... :

Inadequate like an impotent man. His argument a.k.a 'verbal diarhea' is forever archived in Google. I would pray to God if I were you Swayside if you ever want to bother reading it. It is solid proof that Terry simply cannot argue.

Be that as it may, I agree with Shrapnel. The majority of these silly anti-war threads are started by children who just want to be 'cool.' They are way too simplified War=bad, Bush=dumb. One could literally span many months arguing the specifics of this war.

[swayside]

At 2/21/03 10:13 PM, Alakazam wrote:

Be that as it may, I agree with Shrapnel. The majority of these silly anti-war threads are started by children who just want to be 'cool.' They are way too simplified War=bad, Bush=dumb. One could literally span many months arguing the specifics of this war.

this is probably one of the few times i'll ever agree with you.
i have spanned month arguing that. mabey not as speciphic as you intended, but i have.

[Slizor]

yeah right. equal representation of countries? that's what's really laughable. i suppose you don't know about what happened with the hostage situation in iran during the carter administration. carter wanted to be all "politically correct" and involve all branches of the military in the operation of rescuing the american hostages. only one branch was needed. it was a disaster. not five minutes after they landed, an aircarft crashed. the mission failed. only until carter was no longer in office were the hostiges let go. they were released the day reagan was inaugurated.

Because it didn't work then, doesn't mean it can't work now. Anyhow, they are different branches of the military, as opposed to different militaries.

they've got their eyes on oil more than you accuse bush of doing so.

They've got their eyes on that 9.6% of the oil they get?!

Alakazam : The only thing that website shows is your growing rift with reality.

[Alakazam]

At 2/22/03 06:52 AM, Slizor wrote:

Alakazam : The only thing that website shows is your growing rift with reality.

No, it illustrates your poor attemtps at a structured debate. It is my opinion that it is a service for other high school kids, showing them not to follow in your footsteps. :~D

[Slizor]

No, it illustrates your poor attemtps at a structured debate. It is my opinion that it is a service for other high school kids, showing them not to follow in your footsteps. :~D

First you should learn to type, then to draw, or illustrate. Don't try both at the same time, it could fry your feeble brain. You should probably learn to read as well, that would be a good first footstep. And remember baby steps, don't take on what you can't handle.

[Alakazam]

It is your stupidity that is forever archived in Google. Don't be mad. :~D

[Slizor]

It is your stupidity that is forever archived in Google. Don't be mad. :~D

Funny you should mention mad, since you are developing a deep psychosis. Youare clearly adrift from reality and even delusional in places. You also do things that indicate that you can't relate to people, so bury yourself in "sci-fi" and other such fantasy things. This is also indicitave of your drift with reality. I think you should seek help, for the sake of everyone who knows you.

[Crowy]

Hi Shrapnel

I'm from Australia and I'm probably one of the few teens that agree with you. I also think its ironic that people are using the civil right to free speach over here to ban it in Iraq. Read my say in Australia's involvement.