Lotharr Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 I don't want to quit. I like being a soldier. My first tour was in Korea...as an E-1 in fact. My father fought in Vietnam. My grandfathers in WWII. Ours is the greatest and most professional military in the world. The men and woman who Ive served with are the greatest Americans I know. Active duty soldiers get paid crap and deal with all kinds of sh*t I never want to see again. You think that because I'm a citizen soldier I have to shut up and like our president select and his bogus policies....your wrong..I have to follow orders. I will. I believe in the ideas of truth, due process, and fair play. These ideas have been thrown away, remarketed, repackaged, and sold back to us.and the current version is crap. So I don't pray for war...so what.......I'll leave that to the peanut gallery. But when I see wrong I will speak out. You call it whining I call it the duty of any American that believes in democracy. Yes Jag I know.I know.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Herbie: What would his delivery method be? Perhaps a camel? If he used it he would be nuked. I don't agree with Jag's timeframe, but I do agree with the threat. Saddam, of course, isn't going to set off a nuke and say "Hey, look at me, I blew up your city, nyah nyah nyah nyah.". What he will do though, is somehow find a way to let some other actor get ahold of the weapons to use against us, or give them plans for them, or he will use them to control the Middle East (via threat of force). quote:The only country threatening other, and making "contingency" plans for nuking people is the Good Ole US of A. The only country that decides who and what is "allowed" to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Who gave them the right to decide. 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed and ratified by almost every country in the world, states that no more countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and current powers should work toward disarmament (which is shown by our latest arms cuts). 2. The UN is against WMD prolif. 3. Yes, the US makes plans to use nukes if attacked by WMDs. It's self defense. 4. If you think it's allright for Saddam to have Nuclear Weapons, you ARE in a fantasy world if you aren't on drugs. quote: It's all about the oil. If there wasn't any oil do you think we would care. Here's the headline: What the **** is this cliche line? We didn't invade Iraq in the past 10 years, the oil was always there, and we had no plans for an invasion until AFTER 9/11, where we realized that PRE-EMPTION is preferrable to being like the French and waiting to get our @$$es kicked before deciding to defend ourselves. Also, what is making NOW the key time to getting more oil? And do you really think that the government expects to get more and cheaper oil from attacking Iraq? Most likely the other Arab nations are going to cut their oil supplies due to an US attack. We'll get *LESS* oil due to an attack, not more. These liberal slants are getting more and more rhetorical and less and less realistic... quote: That is why I respect the international community (Europe + Canada)......they have this strange ability to see through the crap my people call truth...heh heh....god bless you Herbie your more of a patriot then those two and you don't even live here....heh heh... He lives in a, basically, socialist society. Of course he's going to call US militaristic policy "Evil". He probably said attacking Afghanistan was wrong, the first Gulf War was wrong, and that we should have given up during the Cold War. You keep talking about the international community, but you still FAIL TO ADDRESS my previous points in my last posts. Is invading Iraq *WRONG* or not? You made a comment about ends not justifying the means, and now you fail to defend it. If attacking Iraq is objectively IMMORAL/WRONG, then the international community means nothing in this discussion. If it isn't WRONG/IMMORAL, then you have to address the 8-10 points I made about the problems with Iraq and how we are going to make the world a better place by invading. Oh yeah, and last I checked, England was part of Europe, and they are behind us...or are you only referring to the parts of Europe that agree with you? quote:You think that because I'm a citizen soldier I have to shut up and like our president select and his bogus policies....your wrong..I have to follow orders. I will. I think the point being made is not that you need to shut up and like our elected president, but the fact you are protecting the Constitution of the United States and the American people, yet your philosophy seems to dictate that you protect the entire world and international law before you'd protect Americans. quote: I believe in the ideas of truth, due process, and fair play. These ideas have been thrown away, remarketed, repackaged, and sold back to us.and the current version is crap. What happened to the ideas freedom, liberty, individual rights, Judeo-Christian values, and our Constitution? Did they get replaced with moral relativism, multiculturalism, acceptance, and passivity? Bringing it back to the subject, these totalitarian bastards and their regimes are oppressing their people, and your saying to follow "international law" which is dictated by a bunch of wimps who would rather accept immorality, oppression, and evil, than eliminate it?!? I'd rather us all be incinerated in a nuclear exchange than live in a society that condones oppression of people in the name of "acceptance of other values". quote:So I don't pray for war...so what.......I'll leave that to the peanut gallery. But when I see wrong I will speak out. You call it whining I call it the duty of any American that believes in democracy. Yes, discussion and/or awareness of policies is a duty of Americans. You see though, this conversation/discussion would NEVER happen in Iraq, because you get shot for it. It'd never happen in a lot of nations. And there are people like you who seem to think that it's OK that these conversations can't happen in other nations, because they are "soverign nations". We need to "accept" what they do. Like hell. There's no way our nation can stand by and WATCH while other nations oppress their people and grow to have no problem oppressing others. I guess my stance is spurred more on a more moral basis which the government will not admit to be operating on, but I also clearly see the danger Iraq poses. Either way, Iraq's regime needs to fall, one way or another.
Lotharr Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 Dredd I'm not going sit here and try to convince you...you'll have to grow up for that. This is about big oil. Oppression sucks and we should do everything within the realm of international law to insure democracy spreads. We are supposed to be fighting terrorists. Did you forget that? We did go to Vietnam to "save them". That is a fact. We don't have the right to invade country after country unless they are violating international law....the same law that we spit on with bilateral agreements. You sound like some crusader from 1099. Unilateral action will always cause problems....so we have to be sure in those cases.....and that to me means that our congress would have to make that call....not who ever is really in charge of the Bush admin. This is going nowhere for now so I'm out....but really Dredd, open your eyes and see who calls the shots in this country.....for now anyway..... One dollar one vote. [ 09-17-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest MIKE113 Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 At least the United States doesn't sneak up and hit you from behind like the cowards of 9/11! We tell you up front we're coming, so get your civilians,and probably some high ranking military men, to safety! You have been warned!!!
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 I really feel for you Lothar, you really believe that imperialist propaganda. This is for Oil? Come on dude, if it were "all about oil" we would have not only gone into Kuwait, we would have annexed the damn thing. If it were "all about Oil" we would have told Saudi to either lower the price of oil or we were gonna bash them over the head. This is about security, Iraq is a threat to oil in the region, YES, but we have NO imperialistic goals. The US economy depends on oil, YES, but we aren't gonna go in a take it for ourselves. When we invade Iraq, which we are going to do, because Sodumb has placed conditions on the inspectors, it will be to liberate the country, stay there for security until an interim government is in place and then leave, just as we did in Afghanistan. And by the way, this is ALL about terrorism, he is financing the palesstinian suicide bombers, that is a given, he has admitted it proudly, he has stated that all arabs should rise up and use terrorist strikes against ALL US facilities around the world. He is aiding and abetting AlQuaeda within IRAQ right now. He allowed them to use Iraq in some of their military training, but you don't believe European papers, I forgot about that, and Al Jazeera doesn't mean anything to you either. It's not my fault that you are uniformed and brainwashed by government run schooling. But the fact of the matter is, if you actually believe the garbage you spout, you should NOT be in the US military. You would probably be more comfortable with a VW bus with a BIG peace symbol on the front. I was in the military for 4 years, Reagan was my commander in Chief until Bush Sr took over. Reagan was the reason I joined the military. You rprobably would have freaked out over what Reagan did too. Attacking Grenada, Panama, calling the Soviet union the "evil Empire" etc. You would have been yelling and screaming as Reagan built up the military to the point where the USSR just could NOT keep up, and they folded like a cheap suit. No, I have heard people like you before, and it worked before as you were screaming and yelling that it wouldn't. I listen to history, and historically this has worked and will continue to work. THE ONLY thing that thugs and dictators understand is the use of force. Standing around singing Kumbaya is just a good way to get yourself and the rest of us killed.
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 Oh ain't we got fun? Guess who has them? any guesses? I have 2 answers for you and they ain't pretty!! Well, Lothar, still not enough? It is time to take this nutball out before he decides to become a hero to his arab brethren and take out Israel with a nuke. And if you think that he won't do it, you're the dreamer. quote: XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE SEPT 17 2002 11:13:02 ET XXXXX ALERT AS NUCLEAR BOMBS GO MISSING [EXPRESS] TWO hundred nuclear warheads have gone missing in a country suspected of selling high tech arms to Iraq, it emerged last night. The terrifying revelation will heighten fears that Saddam Hussein could be just one step away from having all the ingredients of an atomic bomb. He has threatened terrorist attacks if Britain and America confront him. The warheads, which have vanished in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine, contain enough highly-radioactive plutonium to destroy every capital in Europe and North America several times over. An opposition leader in Ukraine, which has a long history of selling radioactive materials, said that allegations of missing warheads had been confirmed in an investigation by the chaotic country's parliament. Both Iraq and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network are known to have tried to obtain atomic bomb components from Ukraine. Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko said: "Out of 2,400 nuclear warheads which were on Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of only 2,200 warheads has been verified. The fate of the remaining 200 warheads is unknown." Ukraine was supposed to hand over to Russia all nuclear weapons that were stationed on its territory when the USSR collapsed. This should have been completed by 1997. But Serhiy Sinchenko, head of the parliamentary investigation, admitted that some of the missiles had been "lost". Ukraine's government said yesterday that the allegations were "unfounded" but their statement failed to answer why paperwork on the whereabouts of 200 missiles and warheads was missing. The country's security services said they were investigating the claims. The possibility that huge stocks of plutonium could be for sale comes as a secret tape is said to confirm Ukrainian politicians' involvement in selling high-tech weapons to Iraq. Washington is examining secret recordings of a conversation between Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma and the head of the country's military export service, Valeriy Malev. The tape, made by a bodyguard who has since fled Ukraine, is said to contain evidence of military sales to Iraq of Kalchuga radar equipment through shadowy Jordanian middle men. Malev cannot be questioned because he died in a mysterious road accident in March. It is not the first time that allegations have been made of exSoviet nuclear weapons going astray. The former head of Russia's security council, Alexander Lebed, claimed that nuclear "briefcase" bombs were also unaccounted for. Kuchma has recently boasted of his warm links with Iraq, even though his country is seeking Nato and European Union membership. Two weeks ago he said there were "good prospects for development of our relations" with Baghdad. Andy McClean, of Saferworld, a think tank that monitors the arms trade, said: "We have long seen former Soviet countries becoming suppliers of arms to conflict areas." Professor Gary Milhollin, of Iraq Watch, a US think tank tracking Baghdad's weapons development, said: "It's about time there was a clampdown on Saddam's procurement network and the means he employs to finance it." An Iraqi defector has claimed that Iraq has managed to "pirate" sophisticated German centrifuges needed to convert low quality uranium to weapons grade. Khidir Hamza said that Iraq has developed hundreds of the machines which may have been in use since late 1998. It would take around four years of continual refining before the uranium was suitable for weapons use, meaning that Saddam could be in possession of the bomb by this Christmas. Hamza said: "The amount of uranium Iraq already has, conservatively estimated in a German intelligence report at 10 tons of natural uranium and 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium, is enough for three nuclear weapons. "It's a relatively simple process once you have the plans and some experience operating one or two centrifuges." Washington announced earlier this month the interception of a shipment to Iraq of highly refined aluminum tubes suitable for making centrifuges. A Daily Express investigation today reveals how Saddam has used smuggled oil to pay for an illicit worldwide weapons network, breaking UN resolutions to import everything from helicopters to missile guidance systems. Iraq is believed to have made at least £1.3billion in unaccounted funds from smuggling last year alone. Fleets of trucks cross the Jordanian and Turkish border every day, returning unchecked by UN monitors with some carrying banned arms. Neighbour Syria has also reopened a disused pipeline in direct contravention of the UN embargo. Israeli intelligence sources say the two former enemies have been working together on building up Saddam's Scud missile capability, possibly allowing him to strike Israel using weapons of mass destruction.
Guest Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 Links to information on Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Systems and Design (VERY Scary!) This is something that should make everyone sit up and take notice. No matter which side of the fence they are on. IRAQ- some links to terror And here are some facts about his links to Terror and terror organizations. For those of you who believe that Iraq is NOT a part of the war on terror. [ 09-17-2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
CommanderJohnson Posted September 18, 2002 Report Posted September 18, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Dredd I'm not going sit here and try to convince you...you'll have to grow up for that. I hope that wasn't an ageist comment, since if it was, this discussion is proving how wrong that mindset is. quote: This is about big oil. You keep repeating the catch phrases sprouted by liberals without giving any explanation, evidence, or warrants (just like liberals), and refusing to respond to my arguments. Although you fail to respond to almost all of my arguments from the past 2-3 posts, especially the ones in relation to Iraq being a threat, the one directly related to oil is the fact that an invasion on Iraq would most likely HURT big oil since all the oil output from the Middle East would decrease in response to a US invasion of an Arab state. If it was about oil, we'd lift sanctions and be nice to all the Arabs. quote: Oppression sucks and we should do everything within the realm of international law to insure democracy spreads. Ok, i'll take that "international law" comment as a concession that attacking Iraq isn't intrinsically immoral. Now, could you please respond to the 8-10 previously stated points about why Iraq is a danger and the regime needs to be changed or restricted? quote: We are supposed to be fighting terrorists. Did you forget that? Yes, terrorism is a threat and needs to be stopped. Regarldess of Iraq's links to terrorism, Iraq is a threat and needs to be stopped. Since when is the only threat area that the United States can stop is terrorism? We should stop any threat to our safety and freedom, not just terrorism. Sure, Bush and the administration may be passing it off as "war on terrorism", but if you'd refer to my previously stated (8-10) points, you'd realize that the benefits of stopping Iraq greatly outweigh trying to use the army to search the world for terrorists. quote: We did go to Vietnam to "save them". That is a fact. Yes, and we were wrong there. The Vietnamese were WANTING a government that could feed them, and that happened to be communism. Regardless of that, we were in way over our heads since we had to be careful not to bug China and we were fighting in terrian our troops weren't equipped for. All of that history however, has no relevence to freeing a people from a totalitarian dictator who lets his people starve and oppresses them with no regard for natural rights. quote: We don't have the right to invade country after country unless they are violating international law....the same law that we spit on with bilateral agreements. Ok, I think I covered this before, but here's another slant to it. You seem to be saying that "things are right because they are popular". I hope that you see the problem with that. That justifies any majority to oppress a minority since they are outnumbered or outvoted in the "international community". International law MUST Be based on a set of values or morality. I'm guessing that those values are those of rights and freedoms for all and natural law. Granting that those are the values the UN/international law are/should be based on, then we should always follow those values, not necessarily the laws. If the countries of the UN fail to enforce and live up to the values that they profess, then the UN has failed to do their job and the United States must act alone (which i'm glad Bush implied...either the UN does their job or they prove they have outlived their usefulness). It doesn't matter if the US has violated "international law" before or not. I don't think we have (feel free to point out examples for my education), but even if we have, that doesn't change the fact that Saddam is oppressing his people and needs to be removed. quote: You sound like some crusader from 1099. And you sound like a Nazi from World War 2 Germany. The crusaders were wrong in their motives and methods, and they were not trying to uphold a common sense of human decency and morality (i turn to natural law). I, on the other hand, am advocating that we STOP oppression that is intrinsically WRONG and EVIL, while you are saying that "it's Saddam's right to oppress whoever he wants". Even if that's true (which it's obviously not), the threat he poses to human life can DEFINITELY not be ignored. quote: Unilateral action will always cause problems....so we have to be sure in those cases.....and that to me means that our congress would have to make that call....not who ever is really in charge of the Bush admin. It won't always cause problems, and I do agree that Congress should vote on a war unless it is the immediate response to an attack. Pre-emption should get congressional approval unless it's NECESSARY not to. quote: This is going nowhere for now so I'm out....but really Dredd, open your eyes and see who calls the shots in this country.....for now anyway..... ANOTHER cliche theory. Could you PLEASE support your flippant comments with at LEAST some logic? I'm not asking for tons of evidence or articles, just some sort of logic to respond to this and my last 5 or so posts.
Guest $iLk Posted September 18, 2002 Report Posted September 18, 2002 Found this interesting. The Libertarian Party's opinion of latest developments: quote: =============================== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org =============================== For release: September 17, 2002 =============================== For additional information: George Getz, Press Secretary Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 E-Mail: [email protected] =============================== By rejecting U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, Bush undermines his argument for war, Libertarians say WASHINGTON, DC -- The Bush administration's negative reaction to Iraq's offer to readmit U.N. weapons inspectors undermines the president's argument for invading Iraq, Libertarians say. "President Bush's approach to Iraq is full of con: confusion, convolution, and contradiction," said LP Executive Director Steve Dasbach. "He claims Saddam Hussein must be toppled to protect America from weapons of mass destruction, then pooh-poohs Iraq's offer to admit the inspectors. It's time for the American people to ask: Why does George Bush really want to invade Iraq?" For the first time since 1998, the Iraqi government agreed on Monday to allow U.N. weapons inspections into the country "without conditions," according to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In response, White House spokesman Scott McClellan shrugged off the offer as a ploy to avoid confrontation with the United States, and "a tactic that will fail." But that contradicts Bush's most frequent rationale for attacking Iraq, which is that it has, or soon will have, weapons of mass destruction, Libertarians say. "Insisting that the United States should attack before conducting inspections is the political equivalent of scheduling an execution before the trial is held," Dasbach said. "How can Bush claim a pre- emptive strike is the only way to destroy Iraq's weapons before inspectors have gathered evidence that those weapons exist?" And there are other indications that Bush doesn't want to let the facts get in the way of his opinion that Iraq possesses nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, Dasbach pointed out. * According to a report in USA Today, CIA sources say Bush persists in claiming that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction despite "uncertain and sometimes contradictory" intelligence information, and that administration officials draw "the most pessimistic conclusions from ambiguous evidence." * The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says satellite photos show no evidence that Iraq is rebuilding its arsenal. * Congressional representatives who received a secret intelligence briefing on Iraqi arms complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "embellishing" his presentation. * Even senior Bush administration officials concede privately that they don't know whether Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, but insist it's only prudent to assume the worst, according to a USA Today report. "The problem is that 'assuming the worst' could lead to the worst-case scenario for America," Dasbach said. "Thousands of U.S. troops could lose their lives invading a nation that poses no imminent threat to the United States. And launching a strike on an Arab nation could also trigger more September 11-style terror attacks inside our borders." Instead of searching for an excuse to invade Iraq, Bush should be looking for a way to avoid war, Libertarians say. And that means abiding by Iraq's offer to submit to a weapons inspection. "Like all Americans, the president is entitled to his opinion on whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," Dasbach said. "But with so much at stake, he is not entitled to his own set of facts. "What really needs to be inspected is George Bush's case for invading Iraq." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072
Lotharr Posted September 18, 2002 Report Posted September 18, 2002 America has so much potential. I think we will realize that potential as time moves forward. You feel bad for me and I appreciate it....but it doesn't change the reality of how this country does business....if you choose to ignore this reality and surround yourself with information that only supports your idea's, then your only seeing part of the story....but you aren't alone. I support the removal of Saddam with the sanction of the UN. I support the idea of international law and global cooperation. I do not support unilateral action by any man....elected or otherwise. I do not support the idea that America has some special knowledge or right to lead the world through force of arms....or threat of economic sanction. With a country that is so far behind the power curve (compared to other industrialized democracies) on a majority of issues ranging from; democratic participation of it's citizens, numbers of citizens incarcerated, distribution of wealth, institutionalized racism, nonsustainable (and growing) consumption rates, and a bizarre way of politicians buying office.....I don't know what you call it...governmental access? Where is that claim on leadership? Where is it? It is in the amount of weapons we have and the amount of wealth we gathered (and thereby deny to others)....that doesn't do it for me....it is immoral and ultimately self defeating. So you go with the flow if you want but all these things you believe in usually have a very different reason for being then you, and other sources, would have me believe. But who knows...I'm young and still checking things out...that is why I am going to college to really explore why things are, the way they are....not have it fed to me by CNN. I believe in the idea of law, due process, and fair play....not just for the first class citizens who can afford it....but for everyone of every skin color....foreign and domestic. A commitment to truth is harder to live up to than a commitment to country. IÔÇÖll commit to both, and strive to use the former to help shape the latter.
Guest Posted September 18, 2002 Report Posted September 18, 2002 quote: the amount of wealth we gathered (and thereby deny to others). What kind of socialist BS is this. What do you want us to do there Lothar, give all our money to the poor people of the world? Come on Lothar, it's been tried. Economics is NOT a zero sum game, just because I have more does not mean that someone else has less. There isn't a certain amount of money out there that we split between everyone. If there was, we would have run out 2,000 years ago. An economy grows, makes MORE money for the population. We have the richest poor people in the world Lothar. Our poor would be like kings in some of those African countries. Some people in those countries are lucky if they can make .25 a day. Take a basic economics class please, because that statement just told me that you need a refresher course. And make sure that it is taught by REAL professor, not some goofball with a political agenda. I can give a man a fish and feed him for a day, but I can teach him how to fish and feed him for the rest of his life. GIVING people things is NOT going to fix it. Look at the welfare state in this country, what a dismal and expensive failure. Rewarding laziness, gets more laziness, reward a woman for having children out of wedlock and you get more unwed mothers. If a country wants to become as rich as we are, they first need to go to a free market, then after going to free market, they are forced into a democratic or Republican style of government. It CANNOT be helped. You wanna help the world, do you feel that it is unfair of us to be so rich, then you need to go to those countries that are poor and see what kind of governments they have, and what type of markets they have. then work on making them a free market and a democracy. If you feel so guilty over it, then go do that, but you are not going to fix it by putting a gun to my head and making me give them money. It'll piss me off and waste the money. The more controlled, the poorer the country, the less controlled, the richer the country. quote: democratic participation of it's citizens, numbers of citizens incarcerated, distribution of wealth, institutionalized racism, nonsustainable (and growing) consumption rates, and a bizarre way of politicians buying office.....I don't know what you call it...governmental access? You sound like a communist, democratic participation, give me a fricking break, I am not going to every door and walking people to the polls, if they do not wish to vote, it's fine with me, a majority of people that don't vote, either don't care, don't study the issues, or just aren't gonna bother. Those that do vote, a majority of them don't have a clue of the underlying issues. It's an eany meany miney moe, type of thing and I find it sickening. THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! It is a Republic. Haven't you gotten it yet? unbelievable, just fricking unbelievable. Unsustainable? Who's been feeding you that line of BS, NO SUCH THING as unsustainable growth. [ 09-18-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
CommanderJohnson Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 Well, I agree with Jag on this political issue (as expected), but time to throw in my response too. First, to respond to that article about Bush's agenda. The reason why we are still planning on attacking Iraq is because Saddam's letter proves nothing. Saddam SAID that he'd let weapons inspectors have unhindered access AFTER the Gulf War. He didn't, and then the UN was gutless and didn't stop him from playing the shell game. The US isn't going to back down until a UN resolution is passed spelling out specific guidelines of what Saddam will do, and what will happen if he doesn't. You can't blame the administration. They want to be sure that there isn't going to have to be a debate, and thus an opportunity for Saddam to weasel out of a US attack, if he plays a shell game THIS TIME with inspectors. This way, at the first sign of Saddam trying to kick out weapons inspectors, we can just replace em with bombs. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: if you choose to ignore this reality and surround yourself with information that only supports your idea's, then your only seeing part of the story....but you aren't alone.I guess I better try to sound more moderate/balanced. I have no illusion that the actions our government takes are often because of other motives and often benefit the politicians and their interests. HOWEVER, just because the admin may be pushing their own agenda through attacks on Iraq, the facts i've been listen and keep bringing up don't change just because Bush may want to attack Iraq in order to look good to his dad. Attacking Iraq is objectively a good idea (feel free to argue the points I raised), and it isn't "for the oil" (since, as i've already stated, attacking Iraq will INCREASE the prices of oil and hurt us, not help us) quote: I support the removal of Saddam with the sanction of the UN. I support the idea of international law and global cooperation. I do not support unilateral action by any man....elected or otherwise. And I say again, your copping out of the issue and saying that "the UN determines if Iraq is a threat or not". WRONG. Either Iraq is a threat, or Iraq is not a threat. The UN doesn't MAKE Iraq a threat or not a threat because of their vote. Your advocating relativism and it doesn't make sense. Either attacking Iraq is THE RIGHT thing to do, or the WRONG thing to do. That doesn't change just because the UN says so, and our actions should be based on whether or not it's the right or wrong thing to do, not based on the UN's opinion. So, what's your stance? Should Iraq be invaded or not, why/why not? "If the UN says so" doesn't address the question. (and please be sure to respond to the multitude of arguments that have been posted if you say they shouldn't be...I don't want to have to repeat myself) quote:I do not support the idea that America has some special knowledge or right to lead the world through force of arms....or threat of economic sanction. Erm, why not? The alternative is that every country tries to lead the world to shape it to their best interest, in which case we all suffer due to ultimate diversity. Using a real world analogy, why do you think there are only TWO major political parties (which are similar in a lot of ways to each other)? It's because if we had 50 (like Italy), we'd never have enough of a concensus in order to push forward a policy for the common good. Same concept in global relations. Right now, we effectively have 80-90% of the vote because of our power, and by dividing it up equally, no one will be any better for it. This issue is highly irrelevent to the main topic, however. quote:With a country that is so far behind the power curve (compared to other industrialized democracies) on a majority of issues ranging from; democratic participation of it's citizens, numbers of citizens incarcerated, distribution of wealth, institutionalized racism, nonsustainable (and growing) consumption rates, and a bizarre way of politicians buying office.....I don't know what you call it...governmental access? Democratic participation-we live in a free nation. We can't shove it down people's throats, and government is a required class in school. What else do you expect? Sure, it's a bad thing, but we also have a lot more freedom and a lot more people than most other nations, so you can't compare the two. Number of citizens incarcerated-so...what? With increased freedom comes an increased means to commit crimes. Distribution of wealth-NOW you HAVE to be kidding. Jaguar's right about our poorest being rich internationally, but also, people are poorly off because they CHOOSE to be poorly off. We have safety nets through welfare and charity to stop people from getting to a point that they CANT get better. Immigrants 90-150 years ago got here and became rich and pulled themselves up in society WITHOUT social welfare, there's no excuse for not being able to now. Also, what would you suggest, having the government STEAL from the people that WORK for their money? Because that's what the concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is, STEALING, which also undermines our free enterprize system and our democracy. Institutionalized racism-ok, now this is REALLY funny. First of all, other nations have less minorities to WORRY about racism to begin with, so you can't make a comparison. Secondly, we've had laws to combat racism. Just because minorities may not be as well off as whites does not mean that it's because of racism, institutionalized or otherwise. You can't assume racism just because of the final result, AND the quality of life for minorities has been improving. Consumption rates-new inventions keep the production as high as the consumption. Also, we consume more because we have more to begin with. Buying office-that's because of the costs, especially media, of running a campagin. Also, running for office is often not based in personal wealth but in fund raising via a political party which will support you. You don't buy offices because your rich, you get in office because your the best canidate and advertise. Sure, it should be open to more people, but with the vastness of the United States, it'd be impossible. quote: Where is that claim on leadership? Where is it? How do you disprove the claim on leadership? How? We are the strongest nation in the world economically, socially (since we support individual rights and freedoms and help our citizens), and politically/militarily! Without the United States, the world would crumble. We stablize the world due to our power, give markets to other nations and sell products to help the economy, and we are a strong framework for fledging democracies and a beacon of freedom for people of oppressive regimes. We should lead, and we must lead, and your points just bring up possible (not very well explained or warranted or with very bad impacts/effects) problems with the United States, while other nations have just as many if not more problems. quote:It is in the amount of weapons we have and the amount of wealth we gathered (and thereby deny to others)....that doesn't do it for me....it is immoral and ultimately self defeating. It's also immoral to FORCE people to give what they have to others. As i've said time and time again, less welfare, more charity. Your advocating replacing one type of oppression with another. Not to mention you aren't giving a better critera to determine leadership. And again, just because the "international community" says something is right doesn't make it immoral. Read my previous points on this topic and read the religion/spirituality thread that points out how MOST POPULAR VOTE does *NOT* equal *MORAL* since it justifies atrocities and oppression. quote: So you go with the flow if you want but all these things you believe in usually have a very different reason for being then you, and other sources, would have me believe. I may have the same posititon as those in power, but my warrants are explained better and often different. Action against Iraq is an OBJECTIVELY GOOD THING, no matter what the motives are. quote: But who knows...I'm young and still checking things out...that is why I am going to college to really explore why things are, the way they are....not have it fed to me by CNN. Colleges/Universities are liberal institutions and are just going to support your view (especially if you take a PoliSci or other political major), simply because the people in them, especially the professors, are often isolated from the real world. Hell, the people at Berkley still publish books on Marxism being great. If you want to discover the truth, you need to look at history and fact, and then follow all of your beliefs and mindsets to a logical conclusion, especially in different circumstances and with negative situations. Sure, it'd be nice if the international community worked together to solve problems, but what if they marked the US as a problem and said that we had to ship food to other countries and let our people starve? Not only is that immoral, but it destroys the concept of people WORKING for what they earn. It'd be stealing, and be breaking many different forms of morality. But hey, the US is only one country, so if your family starves because of it, that's allright. quote: I believe in the idea of law, due process, and fair play....not just for the first class citizens who can afford it....but for everyone of every skin color....foreign and domestic. Yes, everyone should be helped and the US should step down as the world superpower and totally scrap the constitution for a greater good...we shouldn't worry, the fact that the world is so diverse with so many different beliefs and attitudes isn't going to hinder the process...no one will go to war with each other and fight about the new distribution of wealth, and no one will abuse it...no one would ever see the weakness and capitalize on it...and there's no way that the people of every industrialized country in the world would rise up against the government at the point THEY START DYING for people in a country THOUSANDS of MILES away...why do you have a death wish?!?!? The only way your idea would ever work is if governments (especially ours) OPPRESSED their people, in which case you'd be doing evil means to achieve "good" ends. You can't FORCE the people of the United States to give up what they have for a greater good that you see. That'll just cause rebeliion and deaths and a reaction of oppression. If you want the world to be better, push it but don't force it, otherwise you'll just make it worse. quote:A commitment to truth is harder to live up to than a commitment to country. IÔÇÖll commit to both, and strive to use the former to help shape the latter. A fail to see truth in the methods you seem to propose. Some of your statements are true, but your advocacy is not. The United States stands for a number of abstract ideals that we have a unique grasp on and should never be lost, even for the utopian idea of a world socialistic society.
Guest Remo Williams Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 More evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Well by now Iraq has hidden its WMD very well. Its going to take the inspectors a very long time to find them if they can find them at all. IMO we have no choice but to go in and remove Saddam from power. Its the only way we can be sure he'll never threaten us or our allies again. If we don't you can put money on him building WMD in the future that will cost tens of thousands of lives.
Menchise Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 Don't get your hopes up: I'm just passing through. Threat that Iraq poses to the United States [ 09-19-2002, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Menchise ]
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 Mr. Ritters credibility is totally gone. He is NOT objective. He was given over $400,000 for a documentary film he is doing. Where did he get the money? Saudi Arabia, but the money actually came from Saddam himself. Ritter was saying the exact opposite of what he is saying now 3 years ago, and he changed his tune RIGHT after he got the money. So was he lying then, or is he lying now? Well, I can tell you exactly, he is LYING NOW!! He also has NOT had any intelligence briefings since he was an inspector, he has been stripped of all clearances due to the funny money. He doesn't have a clue. The man has been payed off, he lacks credibility and as far as I am concerned a traitor to his country for taking money from Saddam for his little personal documentary. He should be put up on charges of treason.
Guest Remo Williams Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Don't get your hopes up: I'm just passing through. Threat that Iraq poses to the United StatesAs soon as I read the name Scott Ritter I knew the article wasn't worth the energy it took me to click on the link.
Menchise Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 quote:Mr. Ritters credibility is totally gone. He is NOT objective. He was given over $400,000 for a documentary film he is doing. Where did he get the money? Saudi Arabia, but the money actually came from Saddam himself. Ritter was saying the exact opposite of what he is saying now 3 years ago, and he changed his tune RIGHT after he got the money.He did not change his tune. Ritter has always been for the continuation of weapons inspections rather than military action, and the money did NOT come from Saddam; it came from one of his sympathizers. Ritter openly acknowledged that the source of the funds was not independent, and that he tried to get an independent source beforehand. If you want to talk about lack of objectivity, try looking into the backgrounds of the Bush administration, particularly their ties with big oil and the big arms dealers like Lockheed-Martin. They would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a war with Iraq. quote:He also has NOT had any intelligence briefings since he was an inspectorAnd yet he seems to know more than the government does. He's the only one who's presenting facts. All I get from Rumsfeld is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Guest Posted September 19, 2002 Report Posted September 19, 2002 As I said, his credibility is gone. Anything that Ritter says, I ignore as bogus and with bias. And perhaps what Rumsfeld knows is best not known by the public. They want support, not a bunch of crazies screaming for Saddams head on a platter, and trying to tell them how to do the job. [ 09-19-2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Lotharr Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 US Senator Nick Rahall went to Iraq AND was briefed by the CIA. He can't agree that Iraq is an immediate threat. He believes that dealing with the Iraq situation takes a second seat to getting those that have attacked us....the terrorists....imagine that. Saddam may be a sack of sh*t but he called it right...we won't stop until be own that oil....one way or the other. The truth is a waste on these two....if they were to acknowledge the fact the Bush is just a PR rep for big business what other things would they uncover? Where would the questions stop? It could destroy their world.... But drive on man. The truth will come out sooner or later.... [ 09-19-2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
CommanderJohnson Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Menchise: If you want to talk about lack of objectivity, try looking into the backgrounds of the Bush administration, particularly their ties with big oil and the big arms dealers like Lockheed-Martin. They would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a war with Iraq.Ok, please explain to me how the BIG OIL is going to benefit from an attack on Iraq when the rest of the Middle East CUTS THEIR OIL PRODUCTION? Everyone's been saying how "big oil" is going to be hurt by a war, not helped. quote: quote:He also has NOT had any intelligence briefings since he was an inspectorAnd yet he seems to know more than the government does. He's the only one who's presenting facts. All I get from Rumsfeld is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". He knows more because he presents some true facts and then follows them up with a bunch of BS analysis that doesn't prove that Saddam isn't a danger, that doesn't prove that he doesn't have WMDs, and only serves to give liberals a reason to rant and rave about how they are right, even though the "facts" dont REALLY prove it, they just throw bias around. Menchise, care to respond to the 8-10 points I posted earlier about Saddam? EDIT: Since when does "big business" BENEFIT from wars? Sure, they did during WW2, but currently, stocks go DOWN during conflict, especially when the oil prices go UP due to the Middle East cutting supply since we bug them (such as by an invasion). You keep spouting liberal rhetoric without any explanation... [ 09-19-2002, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]
Guest Remo Williams Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 quote:But drive on man. The truth will come out sooner or later.... Indeed, when there stacking the bodies in mass graves from Saddams WMD maybe you'll finally see it.
Lotharr Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 That's funny.....I always thought that would happen because of reaction from an entire culture that views our intervention as "evil"...wait, that is too strong for the whole a culture....how about bull s*it.....oh wait...that's what it is... Oh well time will tell PS. we already filled those trenches guy....our smart bombs ain't that smart and our policies ain't that christian....hehespecial those of our allies.
Guest Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 Get out of the military and go buy a VW bus Lothar, You obviously missed your calling by a long shot. You guys just love to ignore the fact that A: Iraq has WMD's. 2: you seem to believe that Saddam is rational when in fact he is NOT. 3: you seem to believe that since he is rational, which he is not, that he will not use the wmd's that he has created. Fact of the matter is that he has used them and he WILL use them. He is working like a madman to get Nukes, why? Because he wants ALL of the middle East to himself, he wants to control every barrel of oil that comes out of there, he wants to control EVERY person there. He wants to kill who he wants when he wants. We are all that stand in his way. Guess what? We are going to take out Saddam, why? Because he is a direct threat to us and our allies in the region. We CANNOT allow him to control those oil supplies, and we CANNOT allow him to launch a WMD at Israel or anyone else, nor can we allow him to get WMD's so that he can give them to a terrorist organization to use against us anonymously. You seem to think that he is a rational leader, he is not. The man has killed his own sons for god sake. He gassed 20,000 Kurds in villages in Northern Iraq to make sure that the gas indeed did what it was supposed to do. You actually believe this man is rational? Like I said, you 2 are dreaming. You have been brainwashed into this "the US is evil and Bush is a puppet" liberal BS. Like I said Lothar, get out of the military, you do not belong there.
Lotharr Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 Hee hee....whatever Jag....your the one who claims to believe in the Constitution.....we keep doing what were doing and you might find yourself running around in the hills with a high powered rifle....heh heh....but you better run past me cause I ain't sharing my fox hole with the likes of you .... Amazing what a democracy can do....make a soldier that follows orders and retains his or her own personal opinions.....imagine that. Told you..all about the oil..I didnt think you would miss that one.our standard of living should never be threatened by a mad manerthat we put into power because we could predict what he would do.er.uh.duh. [ 09-20-2002, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Lotharr Posted September 20, 2002 Report Posted September 20, 2002 Just heard that ol' Rummy actually met with Saddam back in the dayto give him weapons....imagine that...this guy loves playing master of the universe....I wonder how many American deaths Rummy is indirectly responsible for.....If I didnt laugh I think Id have to cry But we got to keep that chin upits a hard ball world.bla bla.BOOM!
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now