No one has to die! Right?

[przero]

"Sorry, I am not playing the baiting game. You understand what I mean and intend to obfuscate. So be it. You have answered my questions as I expected you would. "

I love that comment. If you can't answer questions.........

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: przero
"Sorry, I am not playing the baiting game. You understand what I mean and intend to obfuscate. So be it. You have answered my questions as I expected you would. "

I love that comment. If you can't answer questions.........

...dodge the issue completely...

: ) Hopper

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
In fact, we would have lost the American Revoltion if it had not been for the French coming to the rescue. It was French gunpower and arms that really allowed us to win our independance from England.

The Iraqi's have anounced their independance from Saddam???
LINK!? :Q

Many Iraqi people who have escaped from Iraq have pleaded with us to invade and remove Saddam. No one has pleaded with us to leave them alone.

Within Iraq, if you speak out against Saddam, he has your wife raped in front of you, your children's throats are slit, then you are dragged outside, have gas poured on you and you're burned alive for all to see.

Such things tend to keep outspoken critism down to a very low level.

I actualy know all that, I just felt like being a smart ass

I'm not going to try to argue that Saddam is a great guy, because he isn't at all, but him being a bastard is not why we are or should be attacking Iraq

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: przero
"Sorry, I am not playing the baiting game. You understand what I mean and intend to obfuscate. So be it. You have answered my questions as I expected you would. "

I love that comment. If you can't answer questions.........

.....obfuscate.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
I actualy know all that, I just felt like being a smart ass

Oh...

Congrats...

I'm not going to try to argue that Saddam is a great guy, because he isn't at all, but him being a bastard is not why we are or should be attacking Iraq

I think it is... perhaps that is where we disagree...

There are, in my opinion, so many good reasons to remove Saddam from power, it is silly.

*shrug*

: ) Hopper

 

[jahawkin]

Hopper:

51% of Americans believe Saddam was involved in 9/11.
81% believe we should remove him by force.
53% believe that Saddam is aiding terrorists who are trying to kill us all.

Those are from a CNN poll taken two days ago.

That doesn't make it true and is a good indication of the thorough brainwashing the media and White House have applied to the American public. There is no credible evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 or al-Qaeda.

Because before 9/11 our concern was that Saddam would try to attack another country with his military.

After 9/11 our concern became that he would give WMD to a terrorist group who would bring them to America.

That is really the single point that changed our policy towards Iraq.

First off, if Saddam was going to go off on another military adventure, what makes you think he would attack the US?? So far he has invaded Kuwait and Iran, two neighboring countries. Iraq has never attacked a far away country.
Saddam has never given any of his weapons away to terrorists. What makes you think he would give his prized WMD to terrorist orgs that he has no links to?

They didn't, Bush spoke out about Iraq from 9/13/01 and beyond...

He included Iraq in the Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address in Jan 02.

Its one thing to include them in your rhetoric, its another to start moving your military over there and prepare for an attack. It was only after Labor Day that the idea of war with Iraq was pitched to the American public. We've called Iran and North Korea evil, but we're not waiting at their doorsteps waiting to assault them.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

I'm not going to try to argue that Saddam is a great guy, because he isn't at all, but him being a bastard is not why we are or should be attacking Iraq

I think it is... perhaps that is where we disagree...

I would be different if it was said that this war is to liberate the downtrodden Iraqis and set up a beacon for democracy in the middle east, but our government has said that we are attacking Iraq because of their WMDs. I don't know about you, but if there is going to potentially be a lot of death, civilian or otherwise, I want the intentions of the attack to be crystal clear.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: jahawkin
That doesn't make it true and is a good indication of the thorough brainwashing the media and White House have applied to the American public. There is no credible evidence linking Saddam to 9/11 or al-Qaeda.

No, it doesn't...

I actually don't think Saddam was involved in 9/11, but it is as good a reason as any to remove him. I'll take what I can get.

First off, if Saddam was going to go off on another military adventure, what makes you think he would attack the US??

None whatsoever...

North Korea is a far greater threat to the US than Iraq is.

So far he has invaded Kuwait and Iran, two neighboring countries. Iraq has never attacked a far away country.

We don't want him attacking Iran or Kuwait either...

Saddam has never given any of his weapons away to terrorists. What makes you think he would give his prized WMD to terrorist orgs that he has no links to?

No, but he might... What possible reason could we have to want to take that chance?

We've called Iran and North Korea evil, but we're not waiting at their doorsteps waiting to assault them.

Within the past two weeks, Bush as started to mention the use of force against North Korea. He wasn't doing that a month ago, and I believe we will attack North Korea as well about a year from now.

Iran might or might not get attacked, I haven't made up my mind about that yet...

: ) Hopper

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
I understand the feelings of the anti-war people. They don't want civilians to die, they figure if we don't attack, no one has to die...

This is because they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads...

The truth is, civilians will die either way and they have been dying for some time. Over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991. We didn't kill them, Saddam did. He did it with tanks, troops, and by starving them.

He has also killed his own civilians in the past using chemical weapons.

Dead Iraqi civilians, killed via Iraq's own chemical weapons

So while it is true that if we don't attack, some Iraqi civilians may live that otherwise would have died, others that could live will die because we did nothing.

If you are against the war because you believe Saddam is actually not such a bad guy, that's one thing.

If you are against the war because you don't want Iraqi civilians to die, then you are not making that decision based on the facts. Your heart is gold, but your brain has been turned off, and you are wrong. Not just an opinion, the facts speak against you. If you're at all interested in actually being right, rather than just having "good feelings", then you'll have to start processing the facts.

: ) Hopper

lots of citizens have also died due to the sanctions put on Iraq by guess who? the US, you should mention that also.

Tim

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
which is why we are attacking now and were not going to attack on 9/10.

And yet again you prove your ignorance

No, you prove yours...

That is a letter TO Clinton, not from him...

It was signed by a number of people who were trying to push Clinton into getting tough with Iraq...

I don't get George W. Bush's signature at the bottom, do you? Find one of those with his signature on the bottom and I'll be interested.

: ) Hopper

John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz ring a bell?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
I would be different if it was said that this war is to liberate the downtrodden Iraqis and set up a beacon for democracy in the middle east, but our government has said that we are attacking Iraq because of their WMDs. I don't know about you, but if there is going to potentially be a lot of death, civilian or otherwise, I want the intentions of the attack to be crystal clear.

LOL!

I agree with you, I wish Bush would just come out and say what this really is... A crusade against an evil dictator, a mission to spread freedom, democracy, and such to the middle east.

The word Crusade doesn't play well in that part of the world... The Crusades are still remembered over there, and they were, what, 800 years ago? (or was it 1,100 years ago?)

Anyway, I'll take what I can get. This is about "WMD"? Sure, fine, so long as Saddam is gone and freedom and democracy is in place in Iraq...

: ) Hopper

 

[etech]

TheShiz

lots of citizens have also died due to the sanctions put on Iraq by guess who? the US, you should mention that also.

Read the entire thread, and they were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: TheShiz
lots of citizens have also died due to the sanctions put on Iraq by guess who? the US, you should mention that also.

Tim

Tim,

You aren't very good at reading a thread, are you? That has been address twice already in this thread...

: ) Hopper

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27I agree with you, I wish Bush would just come out and say what this really is... A crusade against an evil dictator, a mission to spread freedom, democracy, and such to the middle east.

this is another place where we disagree
(I hope you know that my "downtrodden Iraqi, beacon of freedom" thing was about as laden with sarcasm as you can get )

The word Crusade doesn't play well in that part of the world... The Crusades are still remembered over there, and they were, what, 800 years ago? (or was it 1,100 years ago?)

I can't imagine why...

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: tweakmm
I would be different if it was said that this war is to liberate the downtrodden Iraqis and set up a beacon for democracy in the middle east, but our government has said that we are attacking Iraq because of their WMDs. I don't know about you, but if there is going to potentially be a lot of death, civilian or otherwise, I want the intentions of the attack to be crystal clear.

LOL!

I agree with you, I wish Bush would just come out and say what this really is... A crusade against an evil dictator, a mission to spread freedom, democracy, and such to the middle east.

The word Crusade doesn't play well in that part of the world... The Crusades are still remembered over there, and they were, what, 800 years ago? (or was it 1,100 years ago?)

Anyway, I'll take what I can get. This is about "WMD"? Sure, fine, so long as Saddam is gone and freedom and democracy is in place in Iraq...

: ) Hopper

The problem with that is that any sane person knows its complete bullsh!t. Check out history...the Shah of Iran, countless countries in central america(edit), etc, etc. We may claim we are harbringers of democracy but the past has proved that a fallacy.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz ring a bell?

Yep, and I have no doubt they want Saddam gone...

Hell, Bush himself has good cause, Saddam tried to kill his father... That would sure piss me off...

But until I see one of those with Bush's signature at the bottom, it doesn't mean anything. Thousands and thousands of position letters are send every year, you can find one from almost everyone in Washington saying almost anything at one time or another.

Bush has the final say, and without 9/11, he would never have enough domestic support for a war against Iraq.

: ) Hopper

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: konichiwa
John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz ring a bell?

Yep, and I have no doubt they want Saddam gone...

Hell, Bush himself has good cause, Saddam tried to kill his father... That would sure piss me off...

But until I see one of those with Bush's signature at the bottom, it doesn't mean anything. Thousands and thousands of position letters are send every year, you can find one from almost everyone in Washington saying almost anything at one time or another.

Bush has the final say, and without 9/11, he would never have enough domestic support for a war against Iraq.

: ) Hopper

Point is two of Bush's most prominent advisors have had Iraq on the burner for years. Your claim that 9/11 is the reason why we are going after them is crap. It may be the reason that the American Public is being given, but it's clearly not the reason. It is just an excuse to pull the wool over the public's eyes (along with US P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, Total Awareness, and other John Aschroft stunts)

 

[etech]

konichiwa

The problem with that is that any sane person knows its complete bullsh!t. Check out history...the Shah of Iran, countless countries in central america(edit), etc, etc. We may claim we are harbringers of democracy but the past has proved that a fallacy.

So if you know your history you know why each of those actions were taken in the past.

Does the main reason those actions were taken still exist and if not then your analogy does not stand up.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

eh..we all die sooner or later...when and where and how is the question......so oh wells...ur just prolonging ur death if u keep ur health...

lol what a pessimistic view....i quoted an aquantaince actually on that...

actually, yeah, ....just get this over w/ eh?..war's gonna come anyways...so just get it over w/ bush and we'll elect another dude after u...after war's over...

 

[LunarRay]

lots of citizens have also died due to the sanctions put on Iraq by guess who? the US, you should mention that also.

Tim[/quote]

Put on by the UN actually.. The same folks who, in part, now voice their objection to the death affects of war.
We should simply define our intentions as inherent actions resulting from the state of war that has existed since 09/11. Show the objectors the pictures and intel that justify, if we must, that which ought to be self evident. But, do it now.... or bring the troops home and isolate.. The ally of my enemy is my enemy if for no other reason than I feel betrayed... even more so than if by a former enemy.

 

[rchiu]

I am not going to argue that Saddam does not have blood on his hand, he does.

I'ts just that if we start a war, it will be blood on our hand, and we will have to pay with more terrorism, and international criticism.

If it's Saddam who continue to be a dictator and kill his people, the blood will be on his hand and he will pay with his own blood. If his is so brutal like everyone here say he is, Iraqi people will remove him themselve. It is not for one or few countries, in this case, US, UK and Spain to decide that Saddam is unfit to lead a country, it is for the Iraqi people to decide. If Iraqi people is unable to voice their choice, it is for the international community to help them.

I think most people against the war, like myself not because we like Saddam, but because US, UK and Spain has no right to make decision to attack a country based on their interest and their view, especially the country has not done anything against them. It is up to the UN to decide if Iraq has viloated the resolution, or if Saddam has committed crime against humanity.

 

[jahawkin]

Hopper:

No, but he might... What possible reason could we have to want to take that chance?

Its appears that the only fear is the Saddam might give some terrorists some bad weapons. Isn't there a very, very small chance of this happening?? These irrational fears should not cloud our vision when making policy.

BTW, The latest poll shows 54% of americans support the war while 42% oppose.

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
I understand the feelings of the anti-war people. They don't want civilians to die, they figure if we don't attack, no one has to die...

This is because they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads...

The truth is, civilians will die either way and they have been dying for some time. Over 1 million Iraqi civilians have died since 1991. We didn't kill them, Saddam did. He did it with tanks, troops, and by starving them.

He has also killed his own civilians in the past using chemical weapons.

Dead Iraqi civilians, killed via Iraq's own chemical weapons

So while it is true that if we don't attack, some Iraqi civilians may live that otherwise would have died, others that could live will die because we did nothing.

If you are against the war because you believe Saddam is actually not such a bad guy, that's one thing.

If you are against the war because you don't want Iraqi civilians to die, then you are not making that decision based on the facts. Your heart is gold, but your brain has been turned off, and you are wrong. Not just an opinion, the facts speak against you. If you're at all interested in actually being right, rather than just having "good feelings", then you'll have to start processing the facts.

: ) Hopper

Grasshopper, have any real evidence or data to support your claim that S. Hussein was solely responsible for the death of many Iraqi's, and, can you prove that the oil for food program wasn't a failure that resulted in the loss of many lives? I think we all understand the guy is a ruthless dictator - no one is denying that, not even most Muslims.

But the question is - is a full fledged war the right solution? At this time is it the right solution?

And while many of us people who are against this war are against it because we know for a fact that civilians will die (with our tax dollars btw), many of us are probably scared of the consequences we will face on OUR SOIL.

There is already evidence that the islamic 'jihadi's' are recruiting more and more each day as a result of this war, and, that this war is giving all the leaders credibility. Call me selfish, but in the back of my mind, my biggest fear is that Houston or NY, or Chicago will become another Tel Aviv. If this is the case, I will leave this country with my family. I will not put up with that kind of potential of violence all because the leader of our country - whom i did not elect as it is - decides we MUST war. I will be tremendously sad to go, but I will go, not for my protection, but for that of my family.

The fact is, right now, Israel and India and Chechnya are the biggest battlefields of fundamentalist Islamics vs. Others. Each one of those places is thousands of miles away from me, and in each place, Muslims have grievances towards the majority. If we start giving these guys reasons to hate us, one day you will start seeing suicide bombings in this country, at malls, at parks, at concerts... can you imagine a life like this?


Think we are too good for this? Think again. Israels security is top notch, yet they suffer from many attacks like this. We have about 270 million people, while they are a tiny country. How hard do you think it will be for someone to go and execute a suicide attack in a crowded mall in this country? No security in the world is going to protect our a55es from this and Afghanistan, and now Iraq are both 'reasons' that people will be pissed off at us.

 

[snidy]

We are not attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons (allegedly). We are attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons and we think they might give them to someone intent upon hurting the US . . . plus we think we can take Saddam out. We will not confront Turkey, Isreael, Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran even though all of these countries have WMD and several are known proliferators.

You don't think we could take out these countries? I think we will take out N. Korea and Iran eventually. And hopefully France.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: snidy

We are not attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons (allegedly). We are attacking Iraq b/c they have these weapons and we think they might give them to someone intent upon hurting the US . . . plus we think we can take Saddam out. We will not confront Turkey, Isreael, Pakistan, North Korea, or Iran even though all of these countries have WMD and several are known proliferators.

You don't think we could take out these countries? I think we will take out N. Korea and Iran eventually. And hopefully France.

You're a bright one. Attacking anyone we don't like is the absolute worst possible way to get around in the world, and it will come back to bite us on the ass (as a matter of fact, our belligerence and colonial tendencies in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries are coming back to bite us on the ass now). I wish idiots like you would just stay out unless you have something constructive to say.