Posted on 01/06/2003 4:39:46 PM PST by Publius Maximus
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:01:53 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Maybe they'll promote this Mohammad guy for doing such a good job of finding no WMD in Iraq.
(After all, it is a very hard job to travel all over Iraq and find no WMD!)
North Korea has a very real chance at nuclear weapons production and have now threatened war if sanctions aren't lifted.
As for the gassing of the Kurds, I have no idea whether it happened or not and unless you were actually there, I don't know how you can be so sure either. That notwithstanding, who provided Iraq with the gas to begin with. Are we reaping a bit of what we've sown here?
Sorry, I trust the U.S. Government about as much as Hussein (especially given that we have a President whose grandfather was nailed for trading with the enemy) and therefore anything I am told by said Government is met with the utmost suspicion. I still await the security camera video of other hijackers getting aboard their repsective aircraft on 9-11. Maybe GW is a great man who has the best of U.S. interests at heart, but I would submit there are plenty of reasons to be weary.
Let me ask you (and others on FR) this question, do you believe the ruling class of this country are more loyal to average joe U.S. citizen or to the ruling classes of other countries?
You seem to imply that W is one of the "ruling class." To me, the "ruling class" of the United States consists of those elitist liberal intellectuals--and W is definitely not one of them.
He's one of us.
He and his fellow whiny losers probably had a lot of influence in the Xlinton years. And American thinking--and therefore, indirectly, American policy--has been influenced by his likes for decades.
THAT'S iron-clad proof to you?!?! THAT'S how you convince a forum full of thinking persons?!?!? You ask me for proof that Sadddam is evil (and therefore capable of using WMD's), and I provide eleven facts that point to only one logical conclusion... I ask you for proof that we're presing for war for monetary and military reasons, and not humanitarian (and security, I forgot to type) reasons, and you throw out a pithy one-liner like that?!? I knew I was wasting my time with you.
Here's my rebuttal, anyway: There's more value in the dead, dying, oppressed, tortured, and innocent bodies in Iraq (and the potential victims in America and Israel) than in all that stupid oil... therefore, even according to your, ahem, "logic", the war is STILL for humanitarian and security reasons.
You aren't there when Iraq pumps, transports, and sells their oil either... shall we question whether they really have any oil, as well? After all, we can't trust either government to tell us the truth.
That notwithstanding, who provided Iraq with the gas to begin with. Are we reaping a bit of what we've sown here?
We may have... but we can't be sure, since we weren't there, right? Even if we did sell that gas to Saddam, so what? Does that mean we have to sit back and allow every nation that we've provided weapons with to use them against us, and not retaliate?
Sorry, I trust the U.S. Government about as much as Hussein
Most FReepers trust government that much where our money is concerned... but when our lives are on the line, we tend to be a bit more trusting... and vicious when that trust is violated.
(especially given that we have a President whose grandfather was nailed for trading with the enemy)
Link? Source? Proof? Were you there?
and therefore anything I am told by said Government is met with the utmost suspicion. I still await the security camera video of other hijackers getting aboard their repsective aircraft on 9-11.
This is where you earned my unfettered contempt. With Osama bin Laden happily claiming credit on tape, where Muslims dance in the streets, where dozens of people used their cell phones to report what was going on as they were being flown into the buildings... in the face of all that, YOU claim (with no proof, of course... and remember, you weren't there, dumbass) that it is a government cover-up/conspiracy/plot to allow them to wage a justifiable war and claim those wondrous spoils in Afghanistan and the other pits of hell in the deserts of the Middle East. I won't even type what I hope becomes of your soul.
Maybe GW is a great man who has the best of U.S. interests at heart, but I would submit there are plenty of reasons to be weary.
The word is "wary". Yes, there are plenty of reasons to be WARY in the world, especially with world leaders like Saddam eagerly trying to develop more and more powerful weapons to use on those who want him out of power (Kuwaitis, Iranians, Israelis, Kurds, and Americans)... with world leaders like Kim Jong Il who threatens to use nuclear weapons if there are sanctions against him for violating nonproliferation treaties, violating trade agreements with Clinton, starving millions of his own people, and/or ... with millions of Muslims bombing, raping, beheading, burning, murdering, gang-raping, oppressing, evicting, and torturing those who do not share their faith, and over a billion condoning it by not standing against it (and a few hundred, safely in Western nations, decrying it).
Finally, with all those things to be WARY of, "people" like you question our military's motives (and even throw out silly and unverified acccusations against the family members of the President), try to distract our mission by pointing to other potential targets, dance on the graves of 3000 Americans who were murdered by trying to exonerate their killers, dance on the graves of hundreds of gassed Kurds by Saddam by saying that you're not sure they're dead and that it was someone else who might have sold Saddam the weapons, and you support that same evil man by playing semantics games...
By the way, Saddam HAS directly threatened Americans: remember those rallies with the "death to America" chants? Remember those Iraqi weapons scientists that escaped and told us of Saddam's desires? Remember those payments to suicide-bombers who killed hundreds of Israelis and several Americans in discos, pizzerias, hotels, and buses? Remember those shots fired at American planes that you excuse as understandable? Well, the Nazi soldiers firing at our boys could also be excused, since we were firing at them... that doesn't change the righteousness of the Americans' mission, or diminish the danger they were in.
I was against the first war with Iraq
Oh, this will just be TOO easy
Kuwait WAS part of Iraq until the British cut it away in the 20's so that Iraq wouldn't have so much oil.
Texas was part of Mexico... wanna try and give it back?
We DID say it would be none of our business if he invaded. Then WE betrayed him and went to war.
"We betrayed Saddam"... uh-huh. How DARE we rescue the murdered non-combatants of Kuwait when they and their government ask for it!!! We're SO vile!
It was a stupid, unjust war and we had no business being there.
Stupid of Saddam to think he would win, yes. "Mother of all Battles"... Hah!
Unjust? When Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UN asked us to help out a sovereign nation that has been invade by an aggressor nation whose military is over one-hundred times bigger than theirs? You're hilarious!
I am against THIS war with Iraq. Iraq is not a threat to us. We destroyed their wmd
The problem, dolt, is that we haven't been able to confirm this for 11 years (we CREATED the entire arena of nuclear weapon science in less than FIVE... copying it in ELEVEN, when the theory and engineering are available in books around the world is hardly unlikely), and we have several escaped Iraqi weapons scientists who say he IS rebuilding his weapons. (Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel... after they've been tied up.)
and if they do have any the amount isn't enough to hurt anyone but rebels in Iraq.
So it's okay to use WMD's against those who no longer want to be represented by a dictator? You supported China in the Tianenmen Square massacre? You would've supported indiscriminate mass-murder in the Colonies? You know, you've been saying some anti-government things here... maybe your home should get a healthy dose of VX nerve gas. I'm sure you'd agree that it's okay.
Yall do know that those 40? villages were rebels, don't you? They were trying to break away from Iraq. I would have gassed them too. Saves on troops and eliminates rebels nicely. Those people he gassed were not just innocent villagers going about their daily lives. Well, some of them were, but their friends and neighbors were hiding rebels.
I'm speechless. Others may ask for you to be banned. I'm hoping you'll suffer far worse fates.
We have no excuse to destroy Iraq.
We're not destroying the nation, dolt, we're removing a ruthless dictator.
All that will happen is we will just piss off more muslims and create a larger terrorist base to worry about.
So you're a coward, too? Not surprising. If Muslims want a war, let them bring it. Heck, they have been for over a decade. Unfortunately, we have to suffer worms like you and droberts who are so terrified of them, that they will not give them any reason to stop attacking.
Just because a texan is ordering the murders doesn't make them right. The blood of 500,000 more humans who did NOTHING to us will be on your hands and mine.
There won't be 500,000 dead, liar. The last time we were at war there, we took in FAR more surrendering soldiers than we killed... and they were better-fed, better-treated, and safer with our troops than under their commanders.
My hands are bloody enough after all the killing done in mine and your names in the last 13 years. Iraqi, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Haiti, Panama, the list goes on and on. So many dead for no good reason.
Thank Clinton for most of that. (You forgot Somalia, by the way.) I also don't know how many dead are in Panama, but it's probably less than the American lives lost making their nation meaningful. As for that "blood on your hands", try Lava soap. It gets out all sorts of dirt. Scrub under those nails really hard, too.
As for "no good reason", if you don't think that removing entrenched dictators, who the citizenry have no chance of removing in their lifetime, is a good reason, then you must not care about their lives as much as you profess. Of course, you think gassing them and their children is just fine, so I guess we know where you stand... a dictator murdering innocents to keep them subservient is fine, but the U.S accidentally killing innocents in an effort to rid them of that dictator is evil. Gotchya.
When will it end? What will it take?
ROFL. I really wish I could hear your high-pitched effiminate voice as you say that like a bad high-school actor.
Let me type this really slowly, so you might have some hope of comprehension... there will never be an end to war, and I am glad for it. If war does not exist, that means that differences of opinion, means of self-defense, and emotions (like love, envy and pride) no longer exist or are fully controlled by the state. You cowardly liberals may pray for that kind of slavery, but I do not.
How many must die for some politician's whim? Must we make enemies of everyone on Earth? The reason we were attacked on 911 is because the US would not butt out of other country's business. Our troops in Saudi Arabia have been an extreme sore spot for muslims for a long time.
The enemies of those who want to protect people are the right enemies to have. Muslims are enraged because we don't let them kill their favorite victims, the Jews. We feel some protective feelings towards them, since we freed them from Hitler's death camps, we gave them a homeland surrounded by 20 military and theocratic dictatorships dedicated to continuing Hitler's work, and we believe that people should not be slaughtered for their faith in the Almighty. If those who would do those things are NOT our enemies, THEN we'll know we're really doing something wrong out there. Pulling our troops out of Saudi Arabia would do nothing to abate their steaming hatred, which is planted, formed, encouraged, reaped, and sown in the Muslim madrassas around the world. You might as well say that doing hand-stands on Wednesdays would make them love us.
If the USA would do as our founding fathers told us to do and avoid these stupid foreign entanglements we would not be the pariah of the world we are now. I support our troops. I want ALL of the home and most of them deployed on our southern border.
True... but a bit late at this point. Also, since you're whining about "blood on your hands", you do realize that the moment we stop defending, supplying, and supporting South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, and others, millions will die in the quick-strike wars that will ensue.
Iraq has done nothing but defend itself from the US for the last decade+. So we are intent on killing thousands them.
You seem to lack the candle-power to understand that Iraq is not Saddam, and vice-versa. Clinton had the same disease. Every time he said something would be good for "the American people", he really meant it would be good for Clinton. The Lewinski scandal he said was "bad for America", when really, it was just bad for him. Do you have the same ultra-ego as he does? (See below, all)
Mexico is invading like the albanians did in Yugoslavia. Look at Kosovo. Used to be 90% serbian. 15 years later it is 90% albanian. I wonder that the US will look like in 20 years? Not hopefull about Bush doing anything about that REAL threat to the US.
Hey, you DO have two synapses connecting up there somewhere! Yes, it will probably take the actions of American citizens to get federal attention (just like the doctor strikes in WV, PA, and FL). Good call.
North Korea just stated that they DO have wmd and WILL use them on the US if we do not lift economic sanctions against them. Is Bush sending aircraft carriers to NK? Nope. A REAL threat, from a REAL insane dictator. Millions in the US could die. One atom bomb on LA or Hawaii and 911 will look like nothing. So Bush says that we need diplomacy.
In case you hadn't noticed, when we have severe differences with nuclear-capable nations, we opt for diplomacy and "Cold War", rather than world-wide destruction (of the kind you were just wimpering about, oddly enough). Iraq, in violation of non-prolifeariton treaties, is on the verge of such weapons (as their own administation has recently announced), but does not have them yet. That's the perfect reason to use military force. North Korea, with nuclear missiles in their arsenal, and world-power China backing them, need to be handled more delicately. Of course, you're astronomically idiotic enough to say that we should attack nuclear powers, and not stand in the way of mass-murderers who are trying to get nuclear weapons. ROFL. Now THAT'S a nice recipe for national (and global) suicide.
Despite my utter disdain for war, NK has threatened the US and is capable of doing real damage. War may be the only option to stop that damage from happening. Bush does nothing.
ROFLMBO!!! North Korea is acting DESPITE YOUR DISDAIN FOR WAR?!?!?!? My, my, my, aren't WE the important little world citizen? Tell us, what advice is Russia asking for from you regarding Chechnya? Or are they acting despite your demands there, as well?
So we have a president who will kill innocents when they are no threat to us because it is easy.
*Sigh* We're targeting ONE man. We're encouraging EVERY other option, we're encouraging the people of Iraq, Saddam's officers, the UN, and everyone else to get rid of him so we don't have to. If we have to, we're making sure to limit "collateral damage" as much as possible for everyone involved. Of course, facts, history, diplomacy, and reason are wasted on trolls like you. I'm mostly posting this for any who might lack the brain cells to see that you're a fool.
But will not defend against the real, possibly devastating threats from invasion or atomic attack. And all you people support him. Makes me sorry I voted for him.
LOL, suuuure you voted for him. Uh-huh.
OK, maybe they don't have oil (there is a little more evidence of Iraq's oil than their WMDtm), but why invade Iraq but only have dialog with North Korea who actually do have nuclear weapons. Obvious, because the U.S. Government does not want to wage war on someone who really does have WMDtms. That's why they're considered a deterrent.
We may have... but we can't be sure, since we weren't there, right? Even if we did sell that gas to Saddam, so what? Does that mean we have to sit back and allow every nation that we've provided weapons with to use them against us, and not retaliate?
Just when did Iraq use a weapon we supplied to them against us?
Most FReepers trust government that much where our money is concerned... but when our lives are on the line, we tend to be a bit more trusting... and vicious when that trust is violated
Sorry, why the distinction. The governments of this world have proved time and again they are willing to kill their own. Of couse ours would never do that (Operation Northwoods, Tuskagee, U.S. servicemen's exposure to radiation after nuclear tests, etc...).
Link? Source? Proof? Were you there
Go to google.com, click on 'advanced search', in the 'with all the words' field enter 'Prescott' and 'Bush' and in the 'with the exact phrase field', enter 'trading with the enemy'. Browse the results at your leisure.
This is where you earned my unfettered contempt. With Osama bin Laden happily claiming credit on tape, where Muslims dance in the streets, where dozens of people used their cell phones to report what was going on as they were being flown into the buildings... in the face of all that, YOU claim (with no proof, of course... and remember, you weren't there, dumbass) that it is a government cover-up/conspiracy/plot to allow them to wage a justifiable war and claim those wondrous spoils in Afghanistan and the other pits of hell in the deserts of the Middle East. I won't even type what I hope becomes of your soul.
That's OK you earned mine when you started believing all the B.S. propaganda being churned out by the current administration. On the video tape, it looked nothing like OBL and wasn't it convenient a) to find such a tape and b) to have a very badly distorted sound track. As for the audio tapes, well what a surprise, our (ever trustworthy) Government told us they were genuine, but a Swiss organization said otherwise. As for the cell phone calls from the planes, I don't think I ever disputed the fact that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings, but just who did it? Where are those airport security video tapes? As for those muslims dancing on the street, that does not prove a thing, the film could have been shot at any point in time. Also, why did Bush tell us to forget OBL in March of 2002? How conveniently the attention and passions of idiots like you can be converted from being directed at OBL to Saddam Hussein.
Yes, you know how to spell 'wary', don't pat yourself on the back too hard it might stimulate the logic areas of your brain that have so far remained dormant.
dance on the graves of 3000 Americans who were murdered by trying to exonerate their killers
When did I dance on anyone's grave or exonerate any killers? I just want to make sure we get the right killers. Hey, but who cares about that when we can have a war against an established enemy then we can kid ourselves into thinking that enemy was responsible for all Amerca's ills including 9-11. Perhaps you can point out to me how Hussein is linked to OBL?
By the way, Saddam HAS directly threatened Americans: remember those rallies with the "death to America" chants? Remember those Iraqi weapons scientists that escaped and told us of Saddam's desires?
Well if your going to bomb everyone who's said 'death to America' at some point, let's just blow a chunk out of half the Earth. Who said Saddam does not desire to take a crack at the U.S., so do a whole bunch of nations I suspect (eg. North Korea), why all the attention on Iraq?
Remember those payments to suicide-bombers who killed hundreds of Israelis and several Americans in discos, pizzerias, hotels, and buses
No danger of this being propaganda of course.
In the absence of any real proof as to any of what has so far been talked about (i.e. actually having a time machine and seeing for yourself), the only thing you can go by is ultimately who has gained out of all of this. Well certainly not the Taliban (wasn't it convenient that all the contenders for the Afghan Presidency dropped out and Hamid Karzai, the ex-Unocal man, won by default). Hussein certainly hasn't gained anything (but many do stand to gain his oil). I am still amazed at how easily the attention of the average American has been manipulated away from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.
Well if your going to bomb...
to
'Well if you're going to bomb...'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.