What is wrong with the anit-war peo

[Little-NayNay-27]

ya, what the fuck is wrong with them, if we dont go to war, then we will get more of our own killed, we need to go to iraq, and get rid of the leaders there. they are talking about how much this would cost and that it would make the economy worse, but in the past when we have gone to war, it pulled our country together and our economy was raised, it got us out of the great depression!!

[JMHX]

Yeah, that's a fantastic plan. Whenever the president screws over the economy with wealthy-class tax cuts and corporate scandal, just start a world war. Since that didn't cost us any human lives. It didn't change the face of modern warfare. Besides, so many pro-war ranting people like yourself forget that Iraq didn't attack the United States. I've yet to see any fact in your post besides your one-sided view that "the economy is bad so we'll go to war to help it".

Research.

[lapslf]

The fact that we even give a FUCK about the effect a war will have on the economy shows how greedy the west is. We're asking ourselves "hmmm, how much bucks would this war cost" instead of "hmmm, how much lives would this war cost". Economy should never ever play ANY role in the decision weither you should go to war or not.

[JMHX]

The sad thing is that the economy has played a major role in every military bout for just about every nation for the past century or so. I would even go back as far as England when I say that the economy has always come first in the event of a war.

[Ted-Easton]

At 3/11/03 12:23 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: then we will get more of our own killed,

You say "more", implying that some have already. What Americans have been killed by Iraq since the last time you invaded them?

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

I have a question :

What is wrong with the right-wing pro-war people?

They think after Iraq is attacked that the middle east will love them and embrace their loving demo(n)cracy, fralala, oh no big deal about the hundreds of thousands of lower class Iraqi people that will die...nahhh no big deal.

You can't just kick around a bee's hive and not expect to get stung...

I don't really feel like getting far into the subject because arguing with pro-war fanatics is like trying to turn a devout christian into an atheist, it's long, and pointless. Go watch CNN.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 08:29 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Yeah, that's a fantastic plan. Whenever the president screws over the economy with wealthy-class tax cuts and corporate scandal, just start a world war. Since that didn't cost us any human lives. It didn't change the face of modern warfare. Besides, so many pro-war ranting people like yourself forget that Iraq didn't attack the United States. I've yet to see any fact in your post besides your one-sided view that "the economy is bad so we'll go to war to help it".

Yeah, it was the tax cut that hurt our ecomony. LOL! Uh, did you happen to hear about a little thing called 911? Had a tad bit to do with our economy hurting. Also, the last year of Clinton's presidency showed our economy on the downslide. Don't even try to blame it all on Bush and his tax cuts. That's intellectually dishonest.

[Little-NayNay-27]

ya, i saw some stupid anti-war people on the news before i typed this, so i was like ranting and raving or whatever, but i dont think economy is the only reason we should go to war, i remember that a while ago the nations accross the world signed something that said they would produce like only a certain amount of nuclear weapons, or like none or something, and sadaam broke that treaty, now we have already tried to get him to show us that they have been destroyed peacefully, but he never did. If we dont go to war then we give him a chance to use his weapons on us, thus killing civilians, at least if we go to war the people that die would be those who are there willingly (i know that sounds bad but its the truth).

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

At 3/11/03 10:26 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: ya, i saw some stupid anti-war people on the news before i typed this, so i was like ranting and raving or whatever, but i dont think economy is the only reason we should go to war, i remember that a while ago the nations accross the world signed something that said they would produce like only a certain amount of nuclear weapons, or like none or something, and sadaam broke that treaty, now we have already tried to get him to show us that they have been destroyed peacefully, but he never did. If we dont go to war then we give him a chance to use his weapons on us, thus killing civilians, at least if we go to war the people that die would be those who are there willingly (i know that sounds bad but its the truth).

Where are his nukes? The evidence was fabricated by Washington to get public opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html

Read it.

[The-Last-Kumiho]

At 3/11/03 10:26 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: ya, i saw some stupid anti-war people on the news before i typed this, so i was like ranting and raving or whatever, but i dont think economy is the only reason we should go to war, i remember that a while ago the nations accross the world signed something that said they would produce like only a certain amount of nuclear weapons, or like none or something, and sadaam broke that treaty, now we have already tried to get him to show us that they have been destroyed peacefully, but he never did. If we dont go to war then we give him a chance to use his weapons on us, thus killing civilians, at least if we go to war the people that die would be those who are there willingly (i know that sounds bad but its the truth).

Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

If we wanted Iraq to give up their weapons, we would have to do so by destroying ours first and what American is going to do that? I do not care for Saddam at all, but who are we to tell other countries to disarm their defenses while we keep stock piling our own?

Besides, who needs thousands of nuclear missles when it only takes thirty to destroy the world as we know it.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/11/03 10:52 AM, The_Last_Kumiho wrote: Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

If we wanted Iraq to give up their weapons, we would have to do so by destroying ours first and what American is going to do that? I do not care for Saddam at all, but who are we to tell other countries to disarm their defenses while we keep stock piling our own?

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

[Slizor]

Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors.

Tell that to Cuba, Guetamala, El Salvador, Chile, Panama, Honduras, Nicuragua, Haiti, etc, etc.

[CrustifiedOnCrass]

At 3/11/03 11:29 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

What about the United States aggression towards other countries? The United States bullies EVERYONE, yet they go unpunished.

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

So...Bush can be trusted? The unrealistic thing about your argument is that you think this country will last forever.

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

Speaking of thoughtless...the news feels the need to be completly biased and right wing...how many anti-war protestors do you actually interview yourself at demonstrations? Go watch your corporate media bullshit.

[IndecentXposure]

Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

Saddam is an unstable maniac. He's used bio-chemical weapons before and he's a threat to his neighbors and the world. The U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons unless attacked by a nuclear weapon. If Saddam had or has nuclear weapons he wouldn't hesitate supplying terrorist so that they could attack the United States or any westernized Democratic country for that matter.You sound like you're defending Saddam right now but i bet you wouldn't if you knew of his toture systems, systematic rape of women, murder, i could go on and on.

If we wanted Iraq to give up their weapons, we would have to do so by destroying ours first and what American is going to do that? I do not care for Saddam at all, but who are we to tell other countries to disarm their defenses while we keep stock piling our own?

You don't get it. It's not WE as in the U.S. that are telling Saddam to disarm. It's the United Nations security coucil and the world for that matter that voted 15-0 on resolution 1441. I don't see any resolutions against the United States, do you?

Besides, who needs thousands of nuclear missles when it only takes thirty to destroy the world as we know it.

How do you know we have thousands of nuclear weapons. The Government has never made it public, you're just assuming which is a weak argument.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

True. But the fact is...MOST anti-war protesters are either nieve to the situation, completely against war under any circumstances, followers, or just brain-dead.

[D2Kvirus]

I know what's wrong with us; WE'RE THINKING, YOU DUMBASS PRICK. Breaking from the herd generally helps things, such as not getting shot at so Bush's pals in Big Oil can get richer at your cost.

I'm getting sick of spelling this out to people like you.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 12:49 PM, D2KVirus wrote: I know what's wrong with us; WE'RE THINKING, YOU DUMBASS PRICK. Breaking from the herd generally helps things, such as not getting shot at so Bush's pals in Big Oil can get richer at your cost.

I'm getting sick of spelling this out to people like you.

I'm getting sick of having to point out to conspircacy nuts like you that if it really was all about oil, why didn't we seize the oil fields in the original Gulf War? Bush and his pals, as you call them, could have been getting rich for the last 12 years. Tick, tock. The clock is ticking. Final answer?

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 12:49 PM, D2KVirus wrote: I know what's wrong with us; WE'RE THINKING, YOU DUMBASS PRICK. Breaking from the herd generally helps things, such as not getting shot at so Bush's pals in Big Oil can get richer at your cost.

I'm getting sick of spelling this out to people like you.

Throw in the fact oil prices will go down severely after the conflict nears an end. Oil producers have historically made much smaller profits on oil after such a conflict. You obviously don't know much about how economics work. But "Bush's War Over Oil" is such a nice, neat way to think about a complicated situation. Doesn't take any brain power or analytical skills.

[JMHX]

The price of oil will go down when the conflict ends IF (and bear with me, you closed-minded right-wing bastards)

1. Saddam doesn't enforce Scorched Earth 2003 (appearing at an oil field near you)
2. Saddam doesn't start using the chemical weapons he's promising.
3. Everyone in the United States ignores the fact that there's a WAR GOING ON.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 01:21 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The price of oil will go down when the conflict ends IF (and bear with me, you closed-minded right-wing bastards)

1. Saddam doesn't enforce Scorched Earth 2003 (appearing at an oil field near you)
2. Saddam doesn't start using the chemical weapons he's promising.
3. Everyone in the United States ignores the fact that there's a WAR GOING ON.

So exactly how does that make Bush and "his pals" rich again? I missed it.

[Slizor]

Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

Saddam is an unstable maniac.

That's a reason Saddam won't do so. Anyhow this is an opinion.

He's used bio-chemical weapons before

This is true, but the USA has used bio/chem/nuclear weapons before.

and he's a threat to his neighbors and the world.

He has attacked two countries in the past 24 years the last time being 12 years ago. Look at the danger!

The U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons unless attacked by a nuclear weapon.

This has been contradicted by what Bush has said. And again is only opinion.

If Saddam had or has nuclear weapons he wouldn't hesitate supplying terrorist so that they could attack the United States or any westernized Democratic country for that matter.

An "if" opinion. Hoorah!

It's the United Nations security coucil and the world for that matter that voted 15-0 on resolution 1441.

They voted for disarming Saddam by using the inspectors, not by bombing the shite out of the country.

I don't see any resolutions against the United States, do you?

Well in the past 15 years there have been 12...all of which have been vetoed by the US.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

True. But the fact is...MOST anti-war protesters are either nieve to the situation, completely against war under any circumstances, followers, or just brain-dead.

I choose to quote you. "you're just assuming which is a weak argument"

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 02:20 PM, Slizor wrote:

Why should Saddam throw down his weapons when all the members of the nuclear club (ok, mainly us) should be allowed to keep them?

Saddam is an unstable maniac.

That's a reason Saddam won't do so. Anyhow this is an opinion.

He's killed over a million of his own people. He carries around Mein Kampf (book by Hitler) and confesses that his role model is Stalin.

He's used bio-chemical weapons before

This is true, but the USA has used bio/chem/nuclear weapons before.

He also has more than 1,000 tons of chem/bio weaponsthat is unaccounted for (documented by the UN Inspectors back from 91-98. It specifically states in 1441 that he must relenquish these weapons immediately (as of last November). It also said in the Gulf War cease fire that he do the same thing. He never has and he's proven over 12 years that he never will.

and he's a threat to his neighbors and the world.

He has attacked two countries in the past 24 years the last time being 12 years ago. Look at the danger!

You have no idea who he's been giving/selling stuff too. For example, they never did find out who sent to the Anthrax to Washington DC last year. And that was just a couple of teaspoons that cleared out DC for several weeks. He has many thousands times that amount not accounted for. And that's just talking about Anthrax.

The U.S. would never use its nuclear weapons unless attacked by a nuclear weapon.

This has been contradicted by what Bush has said. And again is only opinion.

Agree, this is an opinion.

If Saddam had or has nuclear weapons he wouldn't hesitate supplying terrorist so that they could attack the United States or any westernized Democratic country for that matter.

An "if" opinion. Hoorah!

The problem is that Iraq and Saddam were working feverishly on a nuclear program when they kicked out the UN Inspectors in 1998 (UN Inspectors confirm this). He has miles and miles of underground bunkers that we cannot spy on with our satellites. It's been nearly 5 years for him to create who-knows-what in those bunkers. He won't allow UN Inspectors in there to this day, yet another violation of Resolution 1441.

It's the United Nations security coucil and the world for that matter that voted 15-0 on resolution 1441.

They voted for disarming Saddam by using the inspectors, not by bombing the shite out of the country.

Correction. They voted to give Saddam one last chance at full and complete disarmament IMMEDIATELY ore else Saddam and Iraq would face severe consequences. Everybody knows that "severe consequences" means force. You can't play dumb with that one. We (the US) is trying to enforce the UN's own resolution. Others are trying to back out of their responsibility.

I don't see any resolutions against the United States, do you?

Well in the past 15 years there have been 12...all of which have been vetoed by the US.

I haven't seen or heard anything about this.

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

True. But the fact is...MOST anti-war protesters are either nieve to the situation, completely against war under any circumstances, followers, or just brain-dead.

I choose to quote you. "you're just assuming which is a weak argument"

Iraq itself has admitted to the amounts of chem/bio I mentioned above to the UN. But they have no plausible explanation of what happened to it.

My question is this: If the UN Inspectors couldn't get the job done from 1991 to 1998, what makes you think they can get it done now?

P.S. Iraq is shooting at our planes patroling the no-fly zone on a daily basis and have been doing so for years. To me, that alone is a declaration of war as they are violating the cease fire from Gulf War. Clinton ignored it during his years.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/11/03 01:15 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote:

At 3/11/03 12:49 PM, D2KVirus wrote: I know what's wrong with us; WE'RE THINKING, YOU DUMBASS PRICK. Breaking from the herd generally helps things, such as not getting shot at so Bush's pals in Big Oil can get richer at your cost.

I'm getting sick of spelling this out to people like you.

Throw in the fact oil prices will go down severely after the conflict nears an end. Oil producers have historically made much smaller profits on oil after such a conflict. You obviously don't know much about how economics work. But "Bush's War Over Oil" is such a nice, neat way to think about a complicated situation. Doesn't take any brain power or analytical skills.

*yawn*

The usual Desperate Republican Zealot drivel is wheeled out again. Originality, please. I can go to the IMDb boards to have this conversation with people far more arrogant, far less knowledgable, and with far more obvious Right Wing user names, thank you.

By the way, in the last Persian Gulf Distraction, the oil fields were;
1. In Kuwait.
2. On fire.

There was also the minor matter of Iraq being in Kuwait, and they wanted them out. Jeez, how bad is history in the American Education System? Wait, apparently you won to War of Independence...

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 03:38 PM, D2KVirus wrote:
*yawn*

The usual Desperate Republican Zealot drivel is wheeled out again. Originality, please. I can go to the IMDb boards to have this conversation with people far more arrogant, far less knowledgable, and with far more obvious Right Wing user names, thank you.

By the way, in the last Persian Gulf Distraction, the oil fields were;
1. In Kuwait.
2. On fire.

There was also the minor matter of Iraq being in Kuwait, and they wanted them out. Jeez, how bad is history in the American Education System? Wait, apparently you won to War of Independence...

Hey idiot, I was talking about the Iraqi oil wells. In the Gulf War, we had completely control over the entire country except Baghdad. We were ready, willing and able to go into Baghdad, but we pulled back because of the UN. The UN thought they could handle Saddam with containment. The question remains: If was only about oil, why didn't Bush keep the oil wells for him and his buddies in the orignal Gulf War. Still waiting for a coherent answer (Wait, apparently you won to War of Independence...WTF?!? Is that English?)

Whatever educational system you cheated through must have forgotten the basics of reading and comprehending. Disappointing, but not surprising.

[JMHX]

At least in the first Gulf War, I could see the reasoning behind it. Iraq had forcibly invaded a neighboring nation and had begun stealing resources. Now there's no motivation for t his war besides W's sabre-ratttling.

[BinLadenmustdie]

At 3/11/03 04:11 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: At least in the first Gulf War, I could see the reasoning behind it. Iraq had forcibly invaded a neighboring nation and had begun stealing resources. Now there's no motivation for t his war besides W's sabre-ratttling.

So we should let countries violate multiple UN Resolutions? What's the point of having the UN then?

[Slizor]

Saddam is an unstable maniac.

That's a reason Saddam won't do so. Anyhow this is an opinion.

He's killed over a million of his own people.

Where is this statistic from?

He carries around Mein Kampf (book by Hitler) and confesses that his role model is Stalin.

I believe they call this propaganda. Although I'm more inclined to believe the Stalin bit. Though not both at the same time.

He has attacked two countries in the past 24 years the last time being 12 years ago. Look at the danger!

You have no idea who he's been giving/selling stuff too.

Neither do you.

If Saddam had or has nuclear weapons he wouldn't hesitate supplying terrorist so that they could attack the United States or any westernized Democratic country for that matter.

An "if" opinion. Hoorah!

The problem is that Iraq and Saddam were working feverishly on a nuclear program when they kicked out the UN Inspectors in 1998 (UN Inspectors confirm this).

The UN inspectors weren't kicked out, they left. And according to Mohamed ElBaradei there is little evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

He has miles and miles of underground bunkers that we cannot spy on with our satellites. It's been nearly 5 years for him to create who-knows-what in those bunkers. He won't allow UN Inspectors in there to this day, yet another violation of Resolution 1441.

Where do you get all this crap from? Faux News?

We (the US) is trying to enforce the UN's own resolution. Others are trying to back out of their responsibility.

Saddam is complying, they are destroying weapons. It is working, the French and the Germans want to continue this. However America is pressing ahead due to it's own economic interests.

I don't see any resolutions against the United States, do you?

Well in the past 15 years there have been 12...all of which have been vetoed by the US.

I haven't seen or heard anything about this.

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

As for the anti-war protesters, there is nothing wrong with them, they are exercising their rights and standing up for something they believe in.

True. But the fact is...MOST anti-war protesters are either nieve to the situation, completely against war under any circumstances, followers, or just brain-dead.

I choose to quote you. "you're just assuming which is a weak argument"

Iraq itself has admitted to the amounts of chem/bio I mentioned above to the UN. But they have no plausible explanation of what happened to it.

They said they destroyed in after the Gulf war, or that it was destroyed during the Gulf war.

My question is this: If the UN Inspectors couldn't get the job done from 1991 to 1998, what makes you think they can get it done now?

Well firstly I don't much care if Saddam has weapons or not. Secondly, there is no point in having inspections if people declare they will not work straight away. What is the rush?

P.S. Iraq is shooting at our planes patroling the no-fly zone on a daily basis and have been doing so for years. To me, that alone is a declaration of war as they are violating the cease fire from Gulf War.

I would like to point out that the "No fly zone" is something which has not been agreed to by the UN, it is a British and American operation. And I think that bombing places (as the planes have done) for the past 13 years counts as an act of war.

[Numnuts500]

At 3/11/03 09:39 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:

At 3/11/03 12:23 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: then we will get more of our own killed,

You say "more", implying that some have already. What Americans have been killed by Iraq since the last time you invaded them?

Yeah, Bush talks as if Iraq poses an immidiate danger to U.S. soil but in reality, Iraq has NEVER invaded or attacked the U.S. excepte in retaliatory fighting. I'm not saying Iraq has not oppresse millions of people and shouldn't be ousted from power, but I think we shouldn't concern ourselves with dangers that don't really exist. Saddam will probably never attack the U.S. becase he has to reason or resources to.

[JMHX]

Numnuts, I like your style of debate. Have you been a regular here before? You should join the Politics Crew. Talk to Ted-Easton about it. You'd be a great addition to the growing team.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/11/03 12:23 PM, CrustifiedOnCrass wrote: What about the United States aggression towards other countries? The United States bullies EVERYONE, yet they go unpunished.

I'm not going to try to defend past foreign policy blunders (key word being PAST), but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait? And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

So...Bush can be trusted?

Typical liberal, acting as if "Bush is a horrible President and a horrible leader" is an established fact, rather than your own opinion. Politicians in general, on both sides of the aisle, tend to be dishonest, but let me put it this way: I would trust Bush before I would trust Saddam.

The unrealistic thing about your argument is that you think this country will last forever.

I never once said that. Only a fool would believe that. But it is our right as a nation to defend ourselves. We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them. Iraq forfeited their right to carry nukes and other weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Kuwait. Plain and simple.

Speaking of thoughtless...the news feels the need to be completly biased and right wing...how many anti-war protestors do you actually interview yourself at demonstrations? Go watch your corporate media bullshit.

I saw a video of someone interviewing anti-war protestors on some web site. In fact, the link to it was posted on this very message board (I'll see if I can dig it up). They seemed to have no inkling of what the situation really was. They couldn't think of a better way to deal with Saddam. And when asked, they were quick to throw out the ridiculous and baseless "war for oil" argument.

And don't go thinking that I have been brainwashed by the "biased American media". I have heard both sides of the argument, and since the anti-war people can't come up with anything better than "the inspections are working" (which they aren't), "give peace a chance", or "it's all about oil", I have sided with those who support war.

And from reading what you have written, I can infer that you hold a general hatred/resentment of the US, which seems to be clouding your judgement in this matter ("If the US is doing this, it must be wrong!") If I am wrong, I apologize, but if I am right, then please wake up.

[Anti-corruption]

I'm sick of this shit. quick, act like a man and destroy saddam regime and takes their oil. use up their oil. see next time whether the Arabians can go ya-ya or not.

i don't give a damn whether US is a bully or not. can't you see up to 50 countries depends on US and its economy? US takes up to 30% of the international market only. Europe takes 50%. the rest to Asia.

US takes the lion share.