ATTACK IRAQ? NO! Bumper sticker

[TheWart]

I get pretty angry from when people go on and on about how the US kills civilians....do you even realize the pains the pentagon went through to minimize civilian death in afghanastan(sp?)? Why do you think they used the mega-expensive laser guided bombs instead of carpet bombing.....

As for Iraq, if you think that for the average Iraqi citizen they are safer with Saddam than with an ttack that would oust Saddam, than you must be loony. In EVERY war, civilian death is unavoidable, and it depends on who you are fighting (like the palestinians "martyrs" who intermingle with civilians)

I think it is really sad that people will not wake up to the danger of Iraq until the either directly attack the US at home or abroad, or give a terrorist group a wmd.


And no, it is not the same as N. Korea or Pakastan, because neither or those countries is rn by complete wackos, they actually have some semblance of responding to international pressure and such.

 

[MinorityReport]

Sherepunjab Pajii,

Satsriakaal.

Guru di da khasla .. guru ji de fateh


Salle goron ka hayan pe deemag ghoom gaya hei .. fuddi mein enkee deemag hey

Twdaaa pind kithey ?

PM kartaa hoon.. aur saab changa ?

 

[tboo]

This is not a NEW war. This is a continuation of the Gulf War. Saddam signed a cease fire contingent on him verifying to the world community through the U.N. inspectors that he would get rid of all of his banned weapons. He has not complied with the terms of that cease fire. I repeat, this is not the start of a new war.

Amen. Lets also not forget the ever on-going firing upon coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: TheWart
I get pretty angry from when people go on and on about how the US kills civilians....do you even realize the pains the pentagon went through to minimize civilian death in afghanastan(sp?)? Why do you think they used the mega-expensive laser guided bombs instead of carpet bombing.....

As for Iraq, if you think that for the average Iraqi citizen they are safer with Saddam than with an ttack that would oust Saddam, than you must be loony. In EVERY war, civilian death is unavoidable, and it depends on who you are fighting (like the palestinians "martyrs" who intermingle with civilians)

I think it is really sad that people will not wake up to the danger of Iraq until the either directly attack the US at home or abroad, or give a terrorist group a wmd.


And no, it is not the same as N. Korea or Pakastan, because neither or those countries is rn by complete wackos, they actually have some semblance of responding to international pressure and such.

Look, i am for a war if it feel it is justified. is it TOO much to ask for to have some evidence of an al qaeda - iraq link? No, i dont' believe this is just some continuation. Yes, i knew the battle would have to be fought again, but i find it a little too coincidental it is going on now. And I'm not referring to AF, I was referring to how we bombed Iraq in 91-92. There were a lot more deaths at that time than there were in AF. Do you think we are going to use those $$$ laser guided bombs all the time when we are fighting an entire country as opposed to certain factions of a country? Keep in mind, the Iraqi military is MUCH larger and better prepared than the Taliban or Al Qaeda was (very little training, rag and tag army that often rode donkeys or horses....).


You are right, in every war civilian death is unavoidable. that is why i am asking if we even really NEED to go to war...


Pakistan is run by a military dicator that overthrew a democratically elected prime minister. The same dicator that refuses to step down and is widely known to arrest political opponents. I suggest you learn more on PK before you make those statements...


edit: btw, I'm not insinuating that Musharraff is a wacko like Hussein is. But, he has done the same things that we have used before for basis of reprimanding a country, yet they are still supported by us and given more than 1 bn.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: tboo
This is not a NEW war. This is a continuation of the Gulf War. Saddam signed a cease fire contingent on him verifying to the world community through the U.N. inspectors that he would get rid of all of his banned weapons. He has not complied with the terms of that cease fire. I repeat, this is not the start of a new war.

Amen. Lets also not forget the ever on-going firing upon coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone

No Fly Zone?

The No Fly Zone is NOT supported by ANY other country except the U.S. and its b*tch England.

We created those, and are forcing it by bullying iraq. The U.N. does not recognize this. We have NO basis for those no fly zones. If they fire upon them, good for them.

edit. must....get......off....computer. will check back later..

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: tboo
This is not a NEW war. This is a continuation of the Gulf War. Saddam signed a cease fire contingent on him verifying to the world community through the U.N. inspectors that he would get rid of all of his banned weapons. He has not complied with the terms of that cease fire. I repeat, this is not the start of a new war.

Amen. Lets also not forget the ever on-going firing upon coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone

No Fly Zone?

The No Fly Zone is NOT supported by ANY other country except the U.S. and its b*tch England.

We created those, and are forcing it by bullying iraq. The U.N. does not recognize this. We have NO basis for those no fly zones. If they fire upon them, good for them.

edit. must....get......off....computer. will check back later..

And iraq refuses to live by it surrender agreement. Aint life a bitch.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
I'm sure i'm going to get flamed in here, but I don't care. I'm going to stand for what i believe in, and not care about trying to win popularity contests on ATOT. And I know there is a lot of support for this by a lot of intelligent, rational people.


For just a small list of reasons why we shouldn't attack, please read: Link

please read the above link in its ENTIRETY before you comment. Don't just read the first few lines and come here and start flaming (seems ALL too common with ATOT).


I'm thinking of ordering one of these bumper stickers. If anyone is interested, heres the link to order (its only $2 bucks):

Link to order

I had seen this bumper sticker on a car in front of me (ironically, i live in TX), and had to find out where to get one. Thanks to Google, i found it. 🙂

I would disagree with almost every point on that list.

"P.S. I invite the rational-thinking advocates of war on Iraq to post some SOURCE/LINK on why we you think we should go to war."

What you posted is worst case editorial opinion. In my opinion and many others, the worst case is not likely to occur. An ex iraqi general living in london thinks iraq will fall in the less than week and that is without 40 days of bombing to soften them up.

 

[Martin]

As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

That's the whole point. According to our administration, we have rock-solid evidence that they possess WMD. If that is all we need to bomb 'em back to the stone-age, why don't we lay our cards down and give the order to go in. What are we wiating for? More reasons to go in? Why? Our evidence is reason enough, isn't it? If the world was shown evidence that SH has WMD and has lied about having them, that would be enough reason, for me personally, to support any attack...and I assume it would be enough reason for the majority who are expressing concerns. Why then won't we come clean with what we have?

Speaking to President Bush, "We don't need more reasons. Just lay out your evidence and your number of supporters will grow 100 times."

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
saber rattling
n.
1. A flamboyant display of military power.
2. A threat or implied threat to use military force.


saber rattling

n : the ostentatious display of military power (with the implied threat that it might be used) [syn: sabre rattling]

But can you honestly tell me, Dave, that you don't think we are going to go to war?

I can honestly tell you that I do not think we are going to unilaterally go to war with Iraq.

Unfortunately, i really think we are. 🙁

In the back of my mind, Nostradamus' prophecies are running amuck. Is this happening to anyone else?

Really a scary thought.

Anyone who starts quoting or even mentioning Nostrodamus in a favourable light has lost any respect they may of had. He didn't predict anything. He just made a bunch of vague scribblings that can be applied to anything. I get a real kick out of the "Nostrodamus predicts the Trade Center Attack" claims. That one proves those who believe him are just full of crap and need to get a life.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

That's the whole point. According to our administration, we have rock-solid evidence that they possess WMD. If that is all we need to bomb 'em back to the stone-age, why don't we lay our cards down and give the order to go in. What are we wiating for? More reasons to go in? Why? Our evidence is reason enough, isn't it? If the world was shown evidence that SH has WMD and has lied about having them, that would be enough reason, for me personally, to support any attack...and I assume it would be enough reason for the majority who are expressing concerns. Why then won't we come clean with what we have?

Speaking to President Bush, "We don't need more reasons. Just lay out your evidence and your number of supporters will grow 100 times."

No one has seen any evidence. If Bush has it, why not tell the UN so the inspectors can verify it?

But you know very well that lots of people don't care about WMDs, to them a good reason would be "Saddam is bad" or "Saddam makes little johnny cry" and that's just mindless crap.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

If that were true, how would we know that he is hiding them?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

There you go with your "what-ifs" again. Fact is if all you needed is a theoretical possiblity to justify a war, then you could justify a war against anyone.

How about this: "What if in 200 years, Germany becomes a nazi state again? We should therefore declare war on germany"

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

There you go with your "what-ifs" again. Fact is if all you needed is a theoretical possiblity to justify a war, then you could justify a war against anyone.

How about this: "What if in 200 years, Germany becomes a nazi state again? We should therefore declare war on germany"

However this is real what if. He already has quite history of doing so. He has no problem executing those and thier family of anyone who would tell where weapons are located. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has been pursuing WMD development.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

If that were true, how would we know that he is hiding them?

The probability is very high that some of our information comes from informants inside of Iraq. Divulging the information we have would also lead to Iraq knowing who has been spilling their secrets. Perhaps you want to imagine what would happen to them and their families if Saddam even thought that he knew who the informants were. I don't, it would give me nightmares.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

There you go with your "what-ifs" again. Fact is if all you needed is a theoretical possiblity to justify a war, then you could justify a war against anyone.

How about this: "What if in 200 years, Germany becomes a nazi state again? We should therefore declare war on germany"

However this is real what if. He already has quite history of doing so. He has no problem executing those and thier family of anyone who would tell where weapons are located. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has been pursuing WMD development.

I'm sorry but simply thinking up a number of bad possibilities isn't a good enough reason for war and might be considered a fallacious argument (Argument To The Future and Argument From Adverse Consequences).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

There you go with your "what-ifs" again. Fact is if all you needed is a theoretical possiblity to justify a war, then you could justify a war against anyone.

How about this: "What if in 200 years, Germany becomes a nazi state again? We should therefore declare war on germany"

However this is real what if. He already has quite history of doing so. He has no problem executing those and thier family of anyone who would tell where weapons are located. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has been pursuing WMD development.

I'm sorry but simply thinking up a number of bad possibilities isn't a good enough reason for war and might be considered a fallacious argument (Argument To The Future and Argument From Adverse Consequences).

And just because something cannot be proved, does not mean it is not true. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that shows iraq is up to no good. You may want to ignore, but i would rather not.

 

[chizow]

I've seen a few of these bumper stickers, but do they come with the rainbows or are they sold separately. Never seen one without the other.

Chiz

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: chizow
I've seen a few of these bumper stickers, but do they come with the rainbows or are they sold separately. Never seen one without the other.

Chiz

rofl.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
As far as I am concerned, there is only one way in which a war would be justified. That is, if a WMD program is found by UN weapon inspectors and Saddam refuses to disarm.

A war over any other reason would be wrong.

What if Hussein is successful in completly hiding everything from the UN?

There you go with your "what-ifs" again. Fact is if all you needed is a theoretical possiblity to justify a war, then you could justify a war against anyone.

How about this: "What if in 200 years, Germany becomes a nazi state again? We should therefore declare war on germany"

However this is real what if. He already has quite history of doing so. He has no problem executing those and thier family of anyone who would tell where weapons are located. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has been pursuing WMD development.

I'm sorry but simply thinking up a number of bad possibilities isn't a good enough reason for war and might be considered a fallacious argument (Argument To The Future and Argument From Adverse Consequences).

And just because something cannot be proved, does not mean it is not true. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that shows iraq is up to no good. You may want to ignore, but i would rather not.

I never said SH doesn't have WMD. I refuse to speculate either way. I will let the UN inspectors do their job and I will trust their conclusions.

I am sure you are familiar with "reasonable doubt". Try and apply it here and you will see how wrong you are. If you can't prove SH has WMD, then you have no case.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak[/bI am sure you are familiar with "reasonable doubt". Try and apply it here and you will see how wrong you are. If you can't prove SH has WMD, then you have no case.

And even with resonable doubt people can be convicted without a smoking gun. I have no doubt Iraq is hiding weapons.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiakI am sure you are familiar with "reasonable doubt". Try and apply it here and you will see how wrong you are. If you can't prove SH has WMD, then you have no case.

And even with resonable doubt people can be convicted without a smoking gun. I have no doubt Iraq is hiding weapons.

And I am glad people like you don't serve on juries. "Your honour, I have no seen any of the evidence in this case, but I have no doubt that the defendent is guilty and should get the death penalty"

 

[Grasshopper27]

1) There Is No Justification for Going to War.

Not true, Iraq continues to defy the UN.

At some point, the UN either matters or it doesn't. Saddam must comply with the UN Security Council.

2) Iraq Does Not Pose a Clear and Present Danger

Sure it does, Iraq is supplying aid to terrorists, including providing them with chemcial weapons (recent sale of VX nerve gas)

3) When It Comes to Invading Iraq, the US Has Few Allies

This is true.

4) An Attack on Iraq Would Make Us Less Safe

This is probably true too.

5) A Costly Invasion Would Take Resources Away from Much Needed Priorities at Home

Our "failing healthcare system" and "overcrowded schools" are commonly used reasons why we need to expand the government yet some more.

Our health care system is fine, our schools overall are fine.

6) Invading Iraq Would Be Extremely Difficult?and Without a Clear Victory

Wrong, invading Iraq is going to be a walk in the park. Only the Republican Guard is going to put up a fight, and they number around 60,000.

The victory will be the removal of the current government in Iraq.

7) A War Would Kill Thousands of People

Don't be so sure, the same critics said that the Gulf War would result in tens of thousands of dead American Soldiers too...

They were wrong then and could well be wrong now.

8) We Should Not Wage a War for Oil

Sure we should, cheap oil is in the interest of the United States. If these countries want to be our friend, they should be sure we get a nice big supply of cheap oil. 🙂

9) Other Options Besides War Are Available

Against Saddam? Nope... He isn't interested in what anyone else thinks, no amount of "pressure" is going to really solve the problem there.

10) Opposition to the War Is Growing

I disagree, most people I talk to agree that attacking Iraq is something we have to do.

Grasshopper

 

[etech]

patience Marty, patience. The jury is still out and no one has invaded anyone yet. At least not since Saddam invaded Kuwait in this case.