Old 19th March 2003, 19:39   #41
zaybee_devil
Member
 
zaybee_devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally posted by Gorgeus
You did realise that this was sarcasm, didn't you ?
yes i did realize...i was just agreeing with u
zaybee_devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 19:40   #42
_Blackdog_
Major Dude
 
_Blackdog_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: detroit
Posts: 1,418
Send a message via AIM to _Blackdog_
george, you made some good points, but imho, you made when horrible point.
Quote:
Saddam is a lot of things, suicidal is not one of them. He knows that if he dares to use WMDs (if he has them) he would be toast in no time at all.
who are you to say what saddam's mental state is? have you met him? are you a psychologist? your opinion is based on absolutley nothing.
_Blackdog_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 19:46   #43
zaybee_devil
Member
 
zaybee_devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United Arab Emirates
Posts: 84
so totally agree with u blackdog...
saddam is a big s.o.b...he shud be assasinated...mmmmm...y didn't bush just whack him?
zaybee_devil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 20:06   #44
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally posted by _Blackdog_
i read all the posts and i noticed a few things... many of you who are against the war are being ridiculous. you say things like iraq is disarmed and that the us will plant wmd to prove that they are right. these are not facts, these are opinions! please do not justify your arguments with your own opinion! it is your OPINION that iraq is disarmed. it is your OPINION that the evidence that iraq has not disarmed is fake or planted by the US. you have no idea whether iraq has wmd, so saying that the war is unjust because YOU dont THINK iraq has wmd is completely illogical.

its really easy to prove a point if you dismiss everything you disagree with and state your beliefs as facts.
It is the opinion of Scott Ritter, former lead of UNSCOM that Iraq was almost completly disarmed by 1998 '90-95%', and that they had no capabilities to produce these weapons at that time. That's a pretty good source of information on which to base an opinion. I think it's far easier to come to the conclusion Iraq doesn't have these weapons based on the facts that they didn't have them 5 years ago and has not had the time or resources to rebuild these infrastructures and the UN weapons inspectors found nothing.

To reverse side to your point is that you also have no idea what Iraq may or may not have. I don't see how that in anyway justifies a war.

so saying that the war is just because YOU THINK iraq has wmd is completely illogical.

At least there is plenty of evidence to not supporting a war.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 20:45   #45
Xerxes
Capitalist Alumni
 
Xerxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place
Posts: 8,687
Send a message via ICQ to Xerxes
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
It is the opinion of Scott Ritter
Also, it is the opinion of Scott Ritter that he would like some hot sex with underage teenagers, ASAP.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/M264375.asp

Quote:
Colonie police arrested Ritter -- whose full name is William Scott Ritter Jr. -- as part of an internet sex crime sting. The police department cannot comment on the arrest, because all records on the case have been sealed.

Colonie police released this mugshot of Ritter following his arrest in June 2001.
However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about the arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself.
The underage girl turned out to be an undercover police officer posing online as a minor.
Xerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 20:50   #46
Orgone_Man
Major Dude
 
Orgone_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally posted by Xerxes
Also, it is the opinion of Scott Ritter that he would like some hot sex with underage teenagers, ASAP.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/M264375.asp
that's quite an underhanded tactic, xerxes...

Anyways, what would this have to do Ritter's statements as the former leader of UNSCOM?
Orgone_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:21   #47
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
Latest news: first Iraqis surrender.
CNN News Story

As far as the justification of war is concerned, it seems to me that war with Iraq must be waged now or later, and I really don't see any reason to wait. In addition, if the U.S. government believes that Iraq has WMD, I think they know what they are talking about. They wouldn't go to all of this trouble to go to war if they weren't convinced that there was good reason, and I trust their judgment. This is, of course, my opinion.
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:23   #48
anubis2003
Forum King
 
anubis2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: middle of somewhere
Posts: 5,564
Send a message via AIM to anubis2003
Already surrendering. Isn't that nice. Maybe this will go by as quickly as Desert Storm.
anubis2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:24   #49
Xerxes
Capitalist Alumni
 
Xerxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place
Posts: 8,687
Send a message via ICQ to Xerxes
Quote:
Originally posted by Orgone_Man
that's quite an underhanded tactic, xerxes...

Anyways, what would this have to do Ritter's statements as the former leader of UNSCOM?
I and Richard Butler, another head of UNSCOM personally think Ritter is an unscrupulous individual who would lie to make things support his position.

And I am not above anything. Sex sells............. your argument
Xerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:27   #50
_Blackdog_
Major Dude
 
_Blackdog_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: detroit
Posts: 1,418
Send a message via AIM to _Blackdog_
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby

To reverse side to your point is that you also have no idea what Iraq may or may not have. I don't see how that in anyway justifies a war.

so saying that the war is just because YOU THINK iraq has wmd is completely illogical.
did you even read my post? i never said i was for the war. i never said iraq has wmd. you tried to turn me into a hypocrite but you've failed. read more carefully before you start pointing the finger at people.

and there are plenty of experts who say that iraq hasn't disarmed, including Hans Blix, lead weapons inspector. he says iraq is making progress disarming by destroying a few missles, but not that they are completely disarmed. so who do you believe? plenty of people say he hasn't disarmed, but you choose to ignore them and only listen to the people who support your view.

any inteligent person would say what i am about to say:
I am in no position to say whether iraq has disarmed or not. I have no way of knowing.
_Blackdog_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:33   #51
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
I never said you were for the war, just critisised your argument.

It's not physically possible to be disarmed in a couple of months. So the only reason the inspections have failed is because, yet again, they have been pulled by the US in favour of a millitary strike.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:36   #52
_Blackdog_
Major Dude
 
_Blackdog_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: detroit
Posts: 1,418
Send a message via AIM to _Blackdog_
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
I never said you were for the war, just critisised your argument.

It's not physically possible to be disarmed in a couple of months. So the only reason the inspections have failed is because, yet again, they have been pulled by the US in favour of a millitary strike.
is it possible to disarm in 12 years? and what do you mean by "yet again"? last time inspections where stopped it was because saddam kicked the inspectors out of the country
_Blackdog_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:40   #53
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
This war isn't ONLY about WMD. It's also about a much needed change of government in Iraq, something that as I said must come sooner or later. Given Saddam's ruthlessness, I don't believe this is possible without anything less than a military strike.
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:42   #54
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
is it possible to disarm in 12 years? and what do you mean by "yet again"? last time inspections where stopped it was because saddam kicked the inspectors out of the country
Wrong. It because the US staged a scene of Iraqi non compliance, which really was UNSCOM under the lead of Mr Butler and with CIA officials in UNSCOM, working as spys, not working to the rules that had been established in the previous years. ie, 4 inspectors to search a presidential palace etc. Rules that were drawn up clearly between UNSCOM and the Iraqi's - and had worked very well in those years - but were used to stage this show of 'non-compliance'. As a result the inspectors were pulled out by the US, who proceeded with opperation Desert Fox.

So is it possible to disarm Iraq in 12 years? Yes, it was almost done in 7.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:43   #55
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
/is in awe by the amount of stupidity that is going through this thread...

/expects thread to soon be locked do to is regression into flame war

dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:46   #56
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally posted by Shock Value
This war isn't ONLY about WMD. It's also about a much needed change of government in Iraq, something that as I said must come sooner or later. Given Saddam's ruthlessness, I don't believe this is possible without anything less than a military strike.
But that is illegal without a security council resolution. The reason given by the pro war people changes every time I look, throwning things on the fire everytime their last reason did not ignite. First it was terrorism and Al Quaida, that was lied about, then it was WMD's until we found non, now it's the Iraqi people. Similar to the war in Afganistan. You ever hear about how the women of Afganistan are still repressed even though that was cited as the reason to bomb out the Taliban?

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:48   #57
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
"/expects thread to soon be locked do to is regression into flame war
"

I see a heated argument here, but no flame war. No one has resorted to any immature tactics of debate (name calling, mocking, etc.) so I see no reason for concern.

"First it was terrorism and Al Quaida, that was lied about, then it was WMD's until we found non, now it's the Iraqi people."

For me, it's about all of those things. That's why I am supportive of this war; it's accomplishing many objectives at once. And while none of these items has been proven true, none have been proven false either. The only way to know for sure whether they are true or false is to use force. Peaceful means just don't work in this situation.
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:51   #58
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
/retraction
your right. the first few posts seemd that way, but it's calmed down since then.

/admists mistake, is sorry.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 21:58   #59
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
"You ever hear about how the women of Afganistan are still repressed even though that was cited as the reason to bomb out the Taliban?"

No, I didn't hear that. I'm not saying it's false, but can you provide a link so that I can be better informed?
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:00   #60
caserock90
Senior Member
 
caserock90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Telecom heaven
Posts: 227
Send a message via ICQ to caserock90 Send a message via AIM to caserock90 Send a message via Yahoo to caserock90
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With coalition warplanes striking Iraqi artillery sites, a military convoy headed toward Iraq, and Iraqi troops already surrendering to U.S. forces, there are clear signs of impending war in the few hours remaining before the U.S. deadline expires for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq.

caserock90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:02   #61
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
No find one yourself.

Quote:
For me, it's about all of those things. That's why I am supportive of this war; it's accomplishing many objectives at once. And while none of these items has been proven true, none have been proven false either. The only way to know for sure whether they are true or false is to use force. Peaceful means just don't work in this situation.
That's like killing everyone that is suspected of a crime - like parking on a double yellow line. It's absurd to think it's going to solve a problem when you don't even know what the problem is.

"This man might have cancer, or is it a cold? Either way we're going to give him a dose of death, that'll stop the cancer".

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:07   #62
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
can anyone find teh funny pro war sign that states "aside from racism, nazism, ect, war enver solved anything"
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:10   #63
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
Quote:
No find one yourself.
I'm not going to take the time to do that, not because I am ignorant but because I would expect the person that made the argument to have a credible source. I am just going to assume that that statement was false if you can't prove it yourself.

I have to leave now, I may return later. My final comment is that the justification of this war is really a personal belief that can't be proven or disproven. It's really a moral question more than anything else. While some may argue that it is illegal under international law, the world is much different now, and I think action must be taken regardless.
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:27   #64
Orgone_Man
Major Dude
 
Orgone_Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,235
this isn't necessarily about female oppression in post war afganistan, but its good nonetheless:

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit...nTerrorism.asp
Orgone_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 22:39   #65
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=1...aliban&spell=1
^^easy
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/bbc-rawa.htm
^^There you go
http://www.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98goodwin.html
^^
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Li..._WarWomen.html
^^

Much was made of the plight of these women in the immediate run up to war in afghanistan, in an attempt to push the humanitarian side and and repress the arguments of the pro peace movement.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 23:33   #66
Fickle
Butterknife of Justice
(Forum King)
 
Fickle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 5,502
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
errr Iraq is allowed weapons! Just not WMD's.
I fail to see how you can dismiss the inspection process so readily when never in history has a country been so successfully disarmed than with UN inspectors. 'Slightly effective' you say? I'd say almost completly effective. The notion that a war will disarm Iraq is frankly a joke.
We didn't inspect him for 10 years or longer! How did he disarm? What the hell are you talking about? And he only disarmed because The US was breathing down his neck after Desert Storm.
I still can't beileve you support this guy.
Did you hear? The human shields have disbanded because the Iraqis put them in front of military buildings instead of schools and church(?)es. I know they don't have churches but you know what I'm talking about.

And if you destroy his WMD, that does disarm him! Disarmament can be destruction. And destroy their military sites we shall. We are not going after thier neighborhoods. Get a clue.

Go read a book without pictures
pabook? | Look, a blog! | Buy Stuff I Wrote
Fickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 23:54   #67
InvisableMan
Ninja Master!
(Forum King)
 
InvisableMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Hotel California
Posts: 4,331
InvisableMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th March 2003, 23:57   #68
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
less than five minutes remaining....scary.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 00:13   #69
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
time is up. i'm just waitnig for teh live screen of baghdad to start shining with missles. this is a very exciting time. very nervewracking. Everyone, wether or not you are for or agains the war, please pray for teh men and women (from all the nation) who are over there.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 00:55   #70
Trigear
bear!
 
Trigear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,426
Quote:
HEADLINE: WAR BREAKS OUT OVER IRAQ, SPILLS OVER INTO WAGD*
story at 11
save the napalm, boys and girls. bush is going to need it.



*wagd=winamp general discussion

Last edited by Trigear; 20th March 2003 at 01:16.
Trigear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 00:59   #71
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
wagd? typo?
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 01:07   #72
Trigear
bear!
 
Trigear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,426
nope
Trigear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 01:08   #73
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
care to share what it is then?

/is SO lost.....
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 01:09   #74
Cleanup
The WWYD Jerk
(Forum King)
 
Cleanup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 2,385
I'm too lazy to read all the posts, so I dunno if this has been posted or not..

My general opinion is that both Bush and Saddam are idiots.

Or perhaps (uh-oh), the American (uh-oh) government (eew) is just (what?) stupid (don't hurt me).

The American government paid Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist group three billion dollars to aid in the killing of... some country. I forget which. Go watch Bowling for Columbine.

September 11, 2001 - Osama Bin Laden uses his CIA training and funds to kill three thousand American people.

Fact - George W. Bush has an IQ of 83. An IQ of 80 is borderline-retarded. This IQ holds the power to pulverize half the world. Bush cannot pronounce 'subliminal,' has a fifteen-second memory, and doesn't know how to chew properly on a bite-sized pretzel. Bush was once seen looking out of capped binoculars.

Fact - Saddam Hussein has been dictator of Iraq for twenty years. In these twenty years, he has killed roughly a hundred thousand people, many of which are his own citizens.
Cleanup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 01:16   #75
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
i wnat proof of those "facts"
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 01:41   #76
Shock Value
Senior Member
 
Shock Value's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=1...aliban&spell=1
^^easy
http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/bbc-rawa.htm
^^There you go
http://www.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98goodwin.html
^^
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Li..._WarWomen.html
^^

Much was made of the plight of these women in the immediate run up to war in afghanistan, in an attempt to push the humanitarian side and and repress the arguments of the pro peace movement.
OK, the first site was just a quick search on Google. The other three sites are all dated BEFORE September 2001. None of those sites claims that women in Afghanistan are still repressed. Here is your original quote:

Quote:
You ever hear about how the women of Afganistan are still repressed even though that was cited as the reason to bomb out the Taliban?
By that comment, I am assuming you meant that women are STILL being repressed in Afghanistan. Those sites only prove that they were repressed BEFORE our troops arrived there. Orgone_Man's site is actually more relevant than yours if that is your argument.
Shock Value is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 06:20   #77
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Quote:
Originally posted by Orgone_Man
Obviously it doesn't count for shit in the ballot box either seeing as how Bush Jr. recieved less votes than gore and somehow was elected by the judicial system due to the "chad problem"...
We have an electoral system. Bush was not elected because of any "chad problem".

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
The diplomatic solution failed because the US said said, "Sod it. Get out of the way or you'll be bombed, you damn weapons inspectors".

So it failed because of the very undiplomatic people in charge of the US.
The diplomatic solution has had years and years to work. It never did. I fail to see how any more time would change the situation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Adil
you morons forget that kids are starving and dying in that country not because of sadam but because of the idiotic part of the US population that let their fucking greedy government do whatever it likes.
You also dont realize that half of the money you make working hard goes in buying those weapons you're so proud showing here.
The US (and other countries) have tried to send aide to the Iraqi people. The aide never reaches them. The Iraqi government has plenty of oil money. Their people are starving because Saddam is starving them, not because of what any other country is doing.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
They did, the most success full disarmerment opperation in history was in Iraq, the US decided it wanted to do Desert Fox, they come out under US orders. They [UNSCOM] never went back. Inspectors went back in, they worked very well, they were pulled out because the US want's to do another war.

Sorry but it's not Iraq's fault a diplomatic effort failed.
"Oh right, those missiles. I forgot about those . . . "

Iraq is not disarmed. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Orgone_Man
They will leave us alone if we leave them alone, its just that we are too afraid to find that out b/c of all the what if's.
The "they will leave us alone if we leave them alone" theory has never worked. Never, not in all of history. If that actually worked, then there would be no wars, no invasions, only peace.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
Well the war is still illegal and imoral, so yes. It just emphasises the need for inspectors and the fact that wars don't disarm.
It would be immoral to stop "the next Hitler"? Are you even thinking about what you are saying?

Hypothetically, we know that Saddam has designs to be the new Hitler. But we need the UN to give us the go ahead to stop him? If that's what you're saying then you're full of shit.

The UN is great at sitting around. It hasn't gotten anything done in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
It is the opinion of Scott Ritter, former lead of UNSCOM that Iraq was almost completly disarmed by 1998 '90-95%', and that they had no capabilities to produce these weapons at that time. That's a pretty good source of information on which to base an opinion. I think it's far easier to come to the conclusion Iraq doesn't have these weapons based on the facts that they didn't have them 5 years ago and has not had the time or resources to rebuild these infrastructures and the UN weapons inspectors found nothing.

To reverse side to your point is that you also have no idea what Iraq may or may not have. I don't see how that in anyway justifies a war.

so saying that the war is just because YOU THINK iraq has wmd is completely illogical.

At least there is plenty of evidence to not supporting a war.
There is evidence that Saddam is not disarmed. But let's play "pretend" and say that Saddam is completely disarmed. Does that somehow justify letting him continue to oppress his own people?

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
It's not physically possible to be disarmed in a couple of months. So the only reason the inspections have failed is because, yet again, they have been pulled by the US in favour of a millitary strike.
Hell, Phily, do you even know what you believe? He's disarmed, but he needs more time to disarm? Come on.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phily Baby
But that is illegal without a security council resolution. The reason given by the pro war people changes every time I look, throwning things on the fire everytime their last reason did not ignite. First it was terrorism and Al Quaida, that was lied about, then it was WMD's until we found non, now it's the Iraqi people. Similar to the war in Afganistan. You ever hear about how the women of Afganistan are still repressed even though that was cited as the reason to bomb out the Taliban?
International law . . . I'm not even going to get into that. But we all know that Saddam is a fine, upstanding man who'd never violate a law of any sort.

There are plenty of reasons to remove Saddam. For me, it boils down to the fact that he's an evil man, and it benefits us to remove him. I have no moral qualms about removing an evil man from power, no matter what the underlying reasons may be.

Quote:
Originally posted by Cleanup
Fact - George W. Bush has an IQ of 83. An IQ of 80 is borderline-retarded. This IQ holds the power to pulverize half the world. Bush cannot pronounce 'subliminal,' has a fifteen-second memory, and doesn't know how to chew properly on a bite-sized pretzel. Bush was once seen looking out of capped binoculars.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because it's not worth attention. (This part isn't either, but I'm sick of crap like this.)

Fact - You have no damned idea what George W. Bush's IQ is. Nor does anyone else who he hasn't told. The reports of "scientists" who measured Bush's IQ by analyzing his speeches are crap, utterly and completely. IQ is judged with a test. Bush has never made any IQ test public. And don't tell me that you have any other real source about Bush's IQ, because you don't, and you're full of shit.

Fact - Bitching about how Bush pronounces words makes you petty. I don't give a damn about how well Bush can pronounce words. I don't know why that's such a huge issue. He's from the south and he's a poor public speaker. I couldn't care less.

Fact - You have no idea what kind of memory George W. Bush has. He graduated from Harvard with a Bachelor's in History, and from Yale with a Master's in Business Administration. I'd say he's significantly higher up the "educational ladder" than the average American.

Fact - I've choked on a food before. So what? Have you never choked on anything?

Fact - You can't "look out of" binoculars if the caps are on. I don't know if that actually happened, and I don't care. I've picked up my camera and tried to use it, only to realize that I forgot to take the cap of. I somehow doubt I'm the only person who's ever done that. But if you are going to make assinine allegations, at least phrase them right. Maybe he looked into some capped binoculars . . .

Quote:
Originally posted by anubis2003
Already surrendering. Isn't that nice. Maybe this will go by as quickly as Desert Storm.
I hope so. I hope even faster.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 06:27   #78
Xerxes
Capitalist Alumni
 
Xerxes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: my 4 Houses on Park Place
Posts: 8,687
Send a message via ICQ to Xerxes
CG, did I ever say that I deeply admire your patience for your methodical responses to these clowns?
Xerxes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 06:38   #79
Curi0us_George
Forum King
 
Curi0us_George's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxford, MS Posts: -1
Posts: 5,179
Send a message via AIM to Curi0us_George Send a message via Yahoo to Curi0us_George
Sometimes I think it's a curse. I don't really choose to respond. There's something that compells me. It's all I can do to not rant in all caps cursing like a sailor.

But thank you.

For the freedom to express myself in my own way without fear of being censored or banned.

47 65 6C 61 65 64 2E 63 6F 6D 00
Curi0us_George is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2003, 07:13   #80
EnDurA
Major Dude
 
EnDurA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast of Aus
Posts: 1,467
amen, i couldna put it better curious
EnDurA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump