No, THIS says it all....

[PhoenixPhlame73]

http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2003/03/27.html

I've always been pro-war, and this really causes me to wonder how people can be aginst it for the reasons they are. they say the war is immoral, but hey, these people, the citizens of Iraq, want us there!

Actually, I'm more than happy to hear other viewpoints, so speculate away....

[Poop Loops]

With a name like that, it really makes me wonder how accurate that website really is.

[PhoenixPhlame73]

I saw it on several diferent sites from links in another board, but I couldn't find the post again so I had to do a search for it, that's just teh first one I found.

[GT500]

Originally posted by PhoenixPhlame73
http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2003/03/27.html

I've always been pro-war, and this really causes me to wonder how people can be aginst it for the reasons they are. they say the war is immoral, but hey, these people, the citizens of Iraq, want us there!



Indeed

[Martin]

The war on Iraq is a contradiction.

The main objectives cannot be achieved:
1. Removal of Saddam Hussein. He is hiding, probably emigrated, or he is probably in a hospital where America and Britain won't attack.
2. It will simply intensify the terrorist threat.

Enough said.

[McGint]

If you were a leader of a country, especialy Iraq, would you not have 'secret' tunnels leading from main political buildings to outside Iraq? I would, and I would expect every leader to have some sort of secret tunnel which would lead them to safety in a major crisis.
No doubt Saddam would have somethign like this, and I would not be surprised if the guy was anywhere else in the world, happily leading his country to war and letting the Americnas/British head for Baghdad.


And is it just me, or have the American troops rushed through the whole of Iraq to get to the capital as quickly as possible(which they have, and it probably the best thing) and left the British troop in Bara and the south to fight off Iraq soldiers who are trying to get the Aliance out? seems to me that the Americans just want to be seen the 'hero' and getting Saddam out of power.
Which i dont blame individual Americans, i blame Bush for this, as it is somethign he would do, just to get America seen as the hero's.

[Poop Loops]

Here in America, it's called Air Force One.

Yes, Bush does want to be the hero here, that's the main reason for this war. It's not about other people, he's rich, if he really wanted to help people he could give them some of his money. No, he has to use OUR money to make him look good.

[Dragon_Master]

NO!! this says it all.....

...

omg.......i forgot!!

human sheilds...if we blew them to hades then they would believe us......

[PhoenixPhlame73]

That's probably why they're going, they figure that if they're in Bahgdad then :

1 : we won't bomb for fear of hitting them

or

2 : when one of them dies, someone will get angry at teh US


both of those are fairly ridiculous, IMHO.

[Squall]

The war on Iraq is a contradiction.

The main objectives cannot be achieved:
1. Removal of Saddam Hussein. He is hiding, probably emigrated, or he is probably in a hospital where America and Britain won't attack.
2. It will simply intensify the terrorist threat.

Enough said.


Far from enough said.

Ok first off as yall are about to find out i am not pro-war. I do not think anybody should be. I agree that we shold be over there and war is what we have to do but war is bad. But sometimes we do what we have to. I agree with bush and that we need to be there...so now to the debate.

1. I disagree with u on this point. Yes he may get away,nut if he has no ppl support and no military left, he has no power. I mean it is a simple as history. How many times in history has a lossing power/leader stay the leader of there country.

2. Yeah maybe it dose, but letting him get more and more power and weapons wouldn't that be increasing the chance of a terroristic attack?


If you were a leader of a country, especialy Iraq, would you not have 'secret' tunnels leading from main political buildings to outside Iraq? I would, and I would expect every leader to have some sort of secret tunnel which would lead them to safety in a major crisis.
No doubt Saddam would have somethign like this, and I would not be surprised if the guy was anywhere else in the world, happily leading his country to war and letting the Americnas/British head for Baghdad.


And is it just me, or have the American troops rushed through the whole of Iraq to get to the capital as quickly as possible(which they have, and it probably the best thing) and left the British troop in Bara and the south to fight off Iraq soldiers who are trying to get the Aliance out? seems to me that the Americans just want to be seen the 'hero' and getting Saddam out of power.
Which i dont blame individual Americans, i blame Bush for this, as it is somethign he would do, just to get America seen as the hero's.

Yes Sadaam has tunnels, but like i have said u can get away but we are not in there to kill him, it was to get hm ut of power. If he is running with his head tucked between his legs we have completed what we went there to do. Not the way we wanted to but yet we have complete our mission.

Ok about the hero, no i do not think that Bush wants to be a hero. How would he look like a hero, he has done nothing the troops are our heros and he knows that. But on another side of this, it is Bush that wants to be a hero, no he isn't making sure that America dose not get attacked again, no he is not trying to help liberate oppressed ppl he is looking for publicity and to be looked as of being the good guy....give me a break!

Ok first ppl go around saying that this war should have only taken 3 or 4 days, then they say we are rushing through. I mean i think that they should have maybe stayed behind a little and u know help the britts mop up the south. Then again I am not the military leader adn what ever we are doing seems to be working so I could give a rats ass.


Here in America, it's called Air Force One.

Yes, Bush does want to be the hero here, that's the main reason for this war. It's not about other people, he's rich, if he really wanted to help people he could give them some of his money. No, he has to use OUR money to make him look good.


Ok he might be rich and he realy is not that rich. Anyway do u know how much it cost to um feed a nation of ppl. Yeah enough said.


If yall wanna know who i am, I am an old member, just resigned up from the haven. I still post there but the war topics are dead and i would like to debate it more. *loves debating*

[Poop Loops]

Right, so next time I want to help a homeless person, I'll ask your entire family for money to help him, since I don't have enough, and then I'll take credit for it. Deal?

Oh he's pretty rich. He owns some oil companies, which is why he wants to drill in Alaska.

[McGint]

If Saddam is still alive then he is still in power.
Saddam can rule his country from anywhere in the world, and he would happily do that before getting killed himself, so if saddam has fled the country he still is in power, he is til alive, and the Iraqi people will stil be **** scared and live in fear of his capabilities, be he in the country or not, he is still the leader.
the only way to get saddam out of power is to capture him, which you cant if if is somewhere else.


No one remembers who thought in the war, i mean down to the last troop. in WWII it was churchill who was remembered for the war, not the troops, it was churchill's troops.
Bush wants to be seen as the ultimate superpower, and the leader of that superpower.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Squall


1. I disagree with u on this point. Yes he may get away,nut if he has no ppl support and no military left, he has no power. I mean it is a simple as history. How many times in history has a lossing power/leader stay the leader of there country.

2. Yeah maybe it dose, but letting him get more and more power and weapons wouldn't that be increasing the chance of a terroristic attack?


1. I actually very much doubt that he will stay in power. The liberation will take place, he won't stay on as Iraqi leader neither will any of his associates. He will emigrate and will still exist. He will not be killed.

2. No, weapons is not an issue. Removing him of his weapons and stuff will make him want revenge and so will all of the other terrorists.

[Squall]

If Saddam is still alive then he is still in power.
Saddam can rule his country from anywhere in the world, and he would happily do that before getting killed himself, so if saddam has fled the country he still is in power, he is til alive, and the Iraqi people will stil be **** scared and live in fear of his capabilities, be he in the country or not, he is still the leader.
the only way to get saddam out of power is to capture him, which you cant if if is somewhere else.


No one remembers who thought in the war, i mean down to the last troop. in WWII it was churchill who was remembered for the war, not the troops, it was churchill's troops.
Bush wants to be seen as the ultimate superpower, and the leader of that superpower.


Like i said before have u ever heard of any leader still being in compete controll of his power after the defeat of their army?
He is going to loose this war and the citizens will not be scared once they find out he has been defeated. They will help get any that are left, i am pretty sure they will at least. He will be out of power very soon. You do not have to capture a leader u can just cut off his balls which we are doing now! By defeating his army.

U are telling me that ppl remember winston churchill rather then the soldiers that fought. Name by name no...infact hell no, but presodent ush has not once yet taken any credit for what is going on oer there. In fact he says stuff everytime he gives a speech like about how brave the troops are. I mean everytime he has a speech he says summin about our troops and give them credit.

Ultimate Superpower... ok we are a super power no matter how u look at it. Dose Bush want to run the world b/c he is protecting the world from a crazy ass dictator no. I find really wierd that this is ALL blamed on Bush. Yall forget, this guy has to be a threat, or we wouldn't have 40 summin countrys backin us would we....

2. No, weapons is not an issue. Removing him of his weapons and stuff will make him want revenge and so will all of the other terrorists.

Yes weapons are a issue. It is the issue that started this war, and some where inbetween announcing that we were going to war and when it happened, to make it look better someone said hey lets fight to keep the ppl safe. The reason we are going over there is so that he dose not get even more wapons then he has now. I mean what how often dose Russia loose a nuke, pretty often. We have already found Russian weapons over there, what makes u think that they will not gladly sell them a nuke.
I mean Russia is poor as hell, almost alot like Germany was before WWII



Also true Bush is rich, but not enough to feed a entire country. Come on, sooner or later we are going to get the moey back by them being an allie and a friend of ours.

[Poop Loops]

Bush isn't taking credit, because we went to find WOMD, and we haven't found ****, AND because there are more American casualties due to friendly fire than from the enemy.

OM...FG... blame it ALL on the Russians right? Do you KNOW how many nukes are out in the world? How many countries HAVE nukes?! You are making a stupid assumption, and yet accuse others of the same when we say Bush is doing it to be the hero. At least we have some support for it.

Nothing was said about Saddam for 12 years, then suddenly Bush said "He was WOMD, we must KILL." We sent some guys there, found nothing. He said "OK... well then he's hiding it! Yeah! That's it! We must KILL." WHY do you figure he did that? And all of a sudden forgot about Saddam and Afghanistan?

[Squall]

Bush isn't taking credit, because we went to find WOMD, and we haven't found ****, AND because there are more American casualties due to friendly fire than from the enemy.

Ok first, we have fond plenty of stuff to say that they had WOMD. What about the 100 acre chemical plant. Of course they took all the evidence away....how many times did we have to run it through the U.N. before we said **** it we are going in anyway. They hid what every they had in there. I guess the chemical suits that were found in the hospital were not a sign... Just wait we will find them.

OM...FG... blame it ALL on the Russians right? Do you KNOW how many nukes are out in the world? How many countries HAVE nukes?! You are making a stupid assumption, and yet accuse others of the same when we say Bush is doing it to be the hero. At least we have some support for it.


Yes blame t all on Russia, there weapons just happen to be the ones that we are finding over there. Also, they loose nuculear weapons so often that we have, to blame it all on them. What other country has low economy and thousands of nukes!

Nothing was said about Saddam for 12 years, then suddenly Bush said "He was WOMD, we must KILL." We sent some guys there, found nothing. He said "OK... well then he's hiding it! Yeah! That's it! We must KILL." WHY do you figure he did that? And all of a sudden forgot about Saddam and Afghanistan?

Yeah well that was the ***** ass president Clinton. What u are going to hold what Clinton didn't do against Bush. No, we are still fighting over there and are after him. Everybody still thinks about Osama everytime the look at the big hole in the skyline of New York.

[Poop Loops]

Originally posted by Squall
[B]Ok first, we have fond plenty of stuff to say that they had WOMD. What about the 100 acre chemical plant. Of course they took all the evidence away....how many times did we have to run it through the U.N. before we said **** it we are going in anyway. They hid what every they had in there. I guess the chemical suits that were found in the hospital were not a sign

It could have been an aspirin factory for all we know. Just because they have chemicals doesn't mean it had to of been WOMD. Chemical suits in a hospital? Iraq isn't a rich country, they get some pretty nasty diseases there.

... Just wait we will find them.

Or plant our own so we don't look stupid, right?


Yes blame t all on Russia, there weapons just happen to be the ones that we are finding over there. Also, they loose nuculear weapons so often that we have, to blame it all on them. What other country has low economy and thousands of nukes!

Israel(not that they would sell stuff to their enemies). China.


Yeah well that was the ***** ass president Clinton. What u are going to hold what Clinton didn't do against Bush. No, we are still fighting over there and are after him. Everybody still thinks about Osama everytime the look at the big hole in the skyline of New York.

No, Clinton didn't find it a big deal, and neither did the rest of the world. That tells you something doesn't it?

[Zach]

I agree. Until we got attacked by Osama, nobody really gave two ****s about Saddam or anything like that. Its not like Bush made some big "anti-terriost" speech said when he was running for president. Hell, they issue RARELY came up. Its when we realized we were almost out of oil that we started to bother Iraq. They have the oil, and we need it. And I think the whole WOMD thing is just another add on to the final thing. Overall though, the main reason is they have the oil we need before prices go too high. Thats why were over there, well thats what I think anyway.

[The Linux Penguin]

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

It was originally a joke on the Jay Leno show, but I think it's the real reason why the US is invading Iraq. North Korea is a much, much, bigger threat than Iraq. Why are we not invading them instead? They've admitted to having WOMD. And, I have not seen nor heard of this so-called evidence the US has showing Iraq have WOMD's. The UN couldn't find them, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the US did put their own WOMD's there to make sure they don't look like idiots in front of the entire world.

What makes you wonder, or, me wonder anyway, if Iraq has WOMD's, why haven't they used them against Coalition bases in Kuwait already?

[Poop Loops]

Well, if they really did have WOMD, using them now would just make everybody side with the US, since we'd KNOW they have them and they are willing to use them.

[Squall]

It could have been an aspirin factory for all we know. Just because they have chemicals doesn't mean it had to of been WOMD. Chemical suits in a hospital? Iraq isn't a rich country, they get some pretty nasty diseases there.


Asprin factory...hiddin...underground? think about it. U do not put thousands and thousands of biohazard uniforms in a HOSPITAL, which had Iraq tropps not injured ones but ones who ambushed our troops.

Or plant our own so we don't look stupid, right?

Yeah like that will ever happen the way that the media know and tells the world everything.

Israel(not that they would sell stuff to their enemies). China.

Yeah but China dose not loose war heads. Also lets see, we have already by the way we have already found some of there weapons there. No way that they would give them more.

No, Clinton didn't find it a big deal, and neither did the rest of the world. That tells you something doesn't it?[quote]

Um, so why the hell set up rules??? He didn't care b/c he was busy getting his **** sucked. The world didn't care b/c nobody made it stick out that he was still doing the same ****.

[quote]I agree. Until we got attacked by Osama, nobody really gave two ****s about Saddam or anything like that. Its not like Bush made some big "anti-terriost" speech said when he was running for president. Hell, they issue RARELY came up. Its when we realized we were almost out of oil that we started to bother Iraq. They have the oil, and we need it. And I think the whole WOMD thing is just another add on to the final thing. Overall though, the main reason is they have the oil we need before prices go too high. Thats why were over there, well thats what I think anyway.

First off we have plenty of oil. I mean damn we have waters of the coast of mexico...we have texas and we have alaska. We are reserving our oil. We buy from other countrys. I am sure that Bush was concerned more with oil prices then the weapons that he had over there and the way he was treatin those ppl give me a break. When u find a better reason why we went over there that actually makes sense then come a debate, till then try not to make urself look stupid.


Registered: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 120

quote:

Operation
Iraqi
Liberation

It was originally a joke on the Jay Leno show, but I think it's the real reason why the US is invading Iraq. North Korea is a much, much, bigger threat than Iraq. Why are we not invading them instead? They've admitted to having WOMD. And, I have not seen nor heard of this so-called evidence the US has showing Iraq have WOMD's. The UN couldn't find them, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the US did put their own WOMD's there to make sure they don't look like idiots in front of the entire world.

What makes you wonder, or, me wonder anyway, if Iraq has WOMD's, why haven't they used them against Coalition bases in Kuwait already?

Ok first off, oil... no... never mind i am not even g into it.

Why we haven't attacked Korea yet... Um do the words trade embargo come to mind. Do the the word 90% of the economy come to mind. They are not stupid if they attack they are ****ed. Anyway...do u go after the bigger enemys first of do u kill the small ones first so theyare out the way... All i have to say is u need to start somewhere...

They know if they shoot them they prove the U.S. right. They are waiting till they have no other alternatives. He plays this war with his mind trying to sike out the ppl and have them doubt there confidence in there government. Which is working fine for simple minded ppl. U know a guy that kills thousands and thousands of his own ppl would never lie to u>??

[Poop Loops]

Ahh yes, since we can't beat them up, we'll beat someone else up. He might not be guilty of what we charge him, but everybody hates him, so it's OK.

Rich people have money, yet they always want more. Same with oil, rich people ALWAYS want more.

I'm starting to not understand your posts, you should calm down, learn some grammar, and THEN type your posts.

Want a good reason for going to war? Bush becomes a hero, Bush gets oil, Americans can boasts that they saved a country, even those fat slobs who didn't lift a finger. Bush gets revenge on Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy. Bush brings back honor to the family after the Gulf War. Those good enough reasons for you?

[The Linux Penguin]

Where is this evidence you have that Iraq has WOMD? Nobody else has seen it, except for you. The UN Inspectors couldn't even find anything!

Anywho, I would damn sure go for North Korea first. They're THE biggest threat to the world at the moment, IMO. They've said they have WOMD, and they've said they're willing to use them. Iraq have denied having them, and if they do have them, they're not willing to use them. Why go for the little threats that can't do **** against the American army, when we are letting the big threat have more time to develop their weapons?

[Squall]

Ahh yes, since we can't beat them up, we'll beat someone else up. He might not be guilty of what we charge him, but everybody hates him, so it's OK.

Rich people have money, yet they always want more. Same with oil, rich people ALWAYS want more.

I'm starting to not understand your posts, you should calm down, learn some grammar, and THEN type your posts.

Want a good reason for going to war? Bush becomes a hero, Bush gets oil, Americans can boasts that they saved a country, even those fat slobs who didn't lift a finger. Bush gets revenge on Saddam for trying to assassinate his pappy. Bush brings back honor to the family after the Gulf War. Those good enough reasons for you?

First off the reason u cannot read my post might be b/c i am disleksic and I am on a IMac, and there keyboards suck. My disleksia make me every bad with grammer also. also just like someone here too make fun of me over misspellings. I find it weird that u cannot read my post they are not that bad. PLZ tell me what u didn't understand...

Ok now the oil stuff, if we want the oil so bad then why the hell are we going to give it to the ppl f Iraq...

Ok about Bush ****... Bush becomes a hero, i would like to know how the hell he would become a hero.

America bost about saving a country...last time i check the britts were in on it too... why dose everything get blamed on America and Bush. Let me guess no matter what side they are on the Britts are right...

When did they try and assasinate his father...i do not remember this...

Why dose everyone compare him to his father. I guess that it is only natural... but hey maybe yall just all think alike! No those are not good enough reasons, those are bull**** reasons, that the ****in IRAQI government and liberals in Califonia (which shouldn't even be a part of the U.S. ****in queers and liberals).

Where is this evidence you have that Iraq has WOMD? Nobody else has seen it, except for you. The UN Inspectors couldn't even find anything!

Anywho, I would damn sure go for North Korea first. They're THE biggest threat to the world at the moment, IMO. They've said they have WOMD, and they've said they're willing to use them. Iraq have denied having them, and if they do have them, they're not willing to use them. Why go for the little threats that can't do **** against the American army, when we are letting the big threat have more time to develop their weapons?


I am guessing that u do not watch ANY of the addresses to the U.N. Powell pointed out alot of evidence. Like the moving bio chemical labs. Lets see the test anthrax they were spreadin out of plains. Um they had and ass of **** and also plans to **** with the U.S. I am guessing u missed all of that?

Ok read my last post... they admitt that they have nukes they have everything to fire them. Ok first they have enough patrolume to fire like what THREE. Second they have to travel over the pacific ocean with out Americas anti nuke system kickin in. Second if u wanna blame any president about N. Korea talk to CLINTON. U know the one that sold nuke intel to Korea for backin for his campiagn...

Iraq not willing to use them. They have used them before they will use them again they are going to wait until they have enough to do an ass load of damage!

[Vincent_V]

you do know that if we attacked north korea the west coast of the US would be decimated by nukes, right? they have the potential to hit us so we leave them alone, iraq however does not have icbms as of yet and to prevent ANOTHER north korea type situation we are stopping them before they acquire enough technology to attack us directly. i dont deny that oil is not a reason for the current war, but it is not the main reason.

[The Linux Penguin]

Oh, yes, because only 3 nuclear warheads wouldn't be much, would it? Have you seen what the Atomic Bomb's did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki!? ANY nuclear weapons in the hands of those maniacs wouldn't be good.

[Zach]

Why do we even care about N. Korea. Have they even remotly threatend us yet? No. They haven't done much of anything wrong. They were down to a minimal amount of nucelar weapons, and they heard that a possible world war could start as result of the US/Iraq conflict, so thats why I think they restarted their chemical plants. I think they want to be protected, especially if we are going to war witn another country, and we view them as a threat.

Also, you claim we have plently of oil? Then why did the prices suddenly drop as we took over more and more oil fields, and why were they up so high before the war started? Answer both of thoose questions first, then you can debate with me.

[Poop Loops]

...Sasquatch... is that you...?

I think Clinton sold them to China...

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/fbilab1/05bush2.htm

Everything gets blamed on America because we're rich, and free, and we boast about it whenever we can. Everything else gets blamed on Bush becuase he is a Grade A dumbass. A rich on at that.

It's not that I can't understand your post, it's just that I have to piece it together to understand it.

[Vincent_V]

Originally posted by The Linux Penguin
Oh, yes, because only 3 nuclear warheads wouldn't be much, would it? Have you seen what the Atomic Bomb's did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki!? ANY nuclear weapons in the hands of those maniacs wouldn't be good.

if they used their nukes on us without provocation north korea would be glass in a day. they arent going to commit suicide just to kill off 2 states out of 50 in the US. if we provoke them and leave the NK government no other options they WILL use the nukes.

[Martin]

The same could be said for Saddam Hussein really. He has been provoked by the Americans and the British attacking Iraq. He has now in exile (most likely) and he probably has been for a long time, communicating the orders and the tactics etc. from far away.

This explains why Iraq have capitulated (sp?) so easily because Saddam is not there.

But anyway...

Saddam is somewhere plotting a terrorist attack, whether it will be similar to 9/11, we don't know, but some sort of terrorist attack will be carried out in the not-so-distance future, and the stupid information minister and some of the other leading Iraqis will be there in exile too.

The objective of the war has been half achieved (the liberation part) but elimination of Saddam hasn't.

Saddam has now got an excuse to attack America and Britain and our allies.