The one & only War On Terror thread

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

I actually have six toes on my right foot... don't ask).

Wow, thats pretty cool.

Eh, it's kinda cool until you have about... eh, ten people ask you, "OMG!! WERE YOU BORN WITH THAT?!?"

Thats a pretty silly question...extra toes generally don't become attached after birth that I'm aware of.

 

That'd be kinda scary if they did.

 

Here's a more sensible one:

 

Does it have any special powers?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'd probably go "ewww gross!" and leave it at that.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'll assume you concede to the points you didn't object and I thank you for that.

 

Yes. Because those countries aren't evil, just cowardly, and Iraq is.

 

While I, personally, DO believe the French are evil (have you ever been over there?!?), I think it's an over-generalization to think that a whole nation is evil because their leader is Saddam Heussein (who I concede, is a fucking lunatic). However, my whole qualm with this issue the whole time is a PR perspective. I'm a pacificst (duly noted), but I realize that if a threat exists, we need to eliminate it.

 

BUT!!!!

 

BUT!!!!

 

If we can't actually PROVE this guy is a threat, we can't very well ignore our allies and run into Iraq like Rambo and asassinate Saddam... it doesn't work that way. By a military perspective, yes, it would work. However, from a political perspective, which is the aspect I am pushing at this point, it doesn't work. We need the backing of the U.N. to go about this, in my opinion. If they do not give us our desired response, it's not gonna effect Mini-W-Me too much either way... we're still gonna attack. However, it's political suicide to turn our backs on our allies and go about something without hard evidence, no matter how obvious it may seem to us.

 

I look back at my posts and it looks like I, ideally, think that Saddam doesn't have these weapons. That's not the case and I think that was partially clouded by my anger right now (different target, not you). It's obvious he has these weapons... but until we can prove it, it's still suicidal from a political perspective... and even from a moral perspective, this is all the more reason for some extremist to plot all of our respective demises.

 

No. What makes us a global power is the fact we account for 36.4% of the global economy and 40.3% of the blobal defence budget. And we spend more effective dollars on research and develipment than the rest of the world put together, and then some.

 

I won't get into all the money we waste (read departmental budgets sometime, you'll get quite a laugh) because it's a moot point. I'll concede the point that these things CONTRIBUTE to our global power status. However, that's not what instills fear into many countries across the globe who also happen to hate us. We have allies out the figurative bunghole and if someone (ala Afghanistan) decided to randomly attack us and actually CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY for that attack, practically the whole world would come crashing down on that poor soul. We need our allies whether you like it or not... whether it is an aid in deterrence or simply adding on to the ability to launch attacks from varied places on the globe (which is a MAJOR factor in conflict).

 

Second, I'm sure he'll try to "go out with a bang." But the simple fact is that he really can't hurt us. We can destroy all his weapons before so much as one American soldier sets foot on Iraqi soil. We've done it before. There is no serious chemical threat to our soldiers. No biological threat. No nuclear threat. it will be child's play.

 

You can't honestly believe that we have every biological weapon he owns on our radar maps. Even one of these weapons can take down platoons... even one of these weapons will ruin many lives. While the old addage "To make an omelet, you've gotta break a few eggs" certainly applies... that's a horrible way to think. Biological weapons are fucking scary, and if we truly think he has them... I would be very afraid even if intel says they aren't anywhere around.

 

Actually, that's my absolute uppermost estimate. 100, 150, and a large percentage of those in the usual wartime accidents rather than due to enemy action.

 

That's assuming, of course, we get all of his biological, chemical, and 'nuclear' weapons beforehand... if not, that number jumps exponentially. This is why I worry.

 

I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. Clarify.

 

My point, albeit poorly stated, was that it's easier to account for tangiable resources than reports of someone attempting to purchase said tangiable resources. If he has them, it's bound to be easier to find than reports of him trying to buy them.

 

Nope. Either continue with that line of attack or admit you were wrong and apologise for attempting it. If I'm ever convinced that your concerns about this war have nothing to do with your personal physical cowardice, I'll do the same.

 

Obviously, it's absurd to think someone weighing 98 pounds would be useful on a battlefield, and thus, I abandoned the argument. However, not so shockingly, it IS possible for women to fight, albeit not ones of such small stature. Therefore, while it may have originally been a valid argument, it no longer was upon hearing the statement of your size.

 

Forgive me if I appeared bitter on that point, I've heard way too many women make arguments about war and simply stand by the fact they can't be drafted and we can. There's certainly cases where they simply can't logically be used in battle and I don't dispute that... but I'm very bitter towards those who can and refuse... yet still make arguments for conflict.

 

However, I still feel the comment was blown way out of proportion and I don't feel an apology is necessary after what obviously wasn't a personal attack.

 

But I don't like unjustified attacks on my character. If you're going to drop the aspersions which appeared in your very first post, be straightforward about it.

 

It was never an argument, more like a snide comment based on my frustration with other factors. I abandoned it when it no longer seemed logical. Sometimes, things that aren't said speak louder than those that are.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I actually have six toes on my right foot... don't ask).

Wow, thats pretty cool.

Eh, it's kinda cool until you have about... eh, ten people ask you, "OMG!! WERE YOU BORN WITH THAT?!?"

Thats a pretty silly question...extra toes generally don't become attached after birth that I'm aware of.

 

That'd be kinda scary if they did.

 

Here's a more sensible one:

 

Does it have any special powers?

Yeah, it's got the power to freak out random people.

[Guest J*ingus]

How'd you get a triple? Anyway, taken care of.

 

Oh, and Flem rules, thanks for introducing that to me. (Was it based on a guy named Dan who moved to Tennessee after Texas?)

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I got a triple because my network went down and I wasn't aware that it was still SENDING, albeit not receiving, data.

 

And yeah, Flem does rule I'm not sure about the basis of it, but hell, I'll read it anyway...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'll assume you concede to the points you didn't object and I thank you for that.

Don't ever assume that. If I concede a point, I'll be sure to let you know. If you're confused about my stance on any aspect of this argument, ask.

 

I think it's an over-generalization to think that a whole nation is evil because their leader is Saddam Heussein (who I concede, is a fucking lunatic).

Obviously, my meaning was that the regime which controls the country is evil. I have nothing against the Iraqis themselves, but it's pointless to talk about them in the first place so long as they remain slaves.

 

However, my whole qualm with this issue the whole time is a PR perspective...

If we can't actually PROVE this guy is a threat, we can't very well ignore our allies... It's obvious he has these weapons... but until we can prove it, it's still suicidal from a political perspective

We absolutely can ignore our "allies." There is no reasonable way to prove what you're asking to any and all people who doubt that Saddam Hussein has WMD and will use them. Such people have already demonstrated that they're unreasonable by their claims of doubt, and their intellectual equals are still debating who shot JFK.

 

and even from a moral perspective, this is all the more reason for some extremist to plot all of our respective demises.

Wrong. They're already doing that. There is no possible way to make them hate us more. Attacking Iraq will only reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

 

I'll concede the point that these things CONTRIBUTE to our global power status. However, that's not what instills fear into many countries across the globe who also happen to hate us.

Absolutely and totally wrong. Our allies are insignificant in military terms, and if a country openly went to war against us, their primary contribution would be in rhetoric. We would bear the brunt of the fighting, as we always do.

 

We need our allies whether you like it or not... whether it is an aid in deterrence or simply adding on to the ability to launch attacks from varied places on the globe (which is a MAJOR factor in conflict).

Wrong yet again. Other countries are glad to host our missiles because it provides a guarantee of American defense. We don't need their friendship. They need ours.

 

You can't honestly believe that we have every biological weapon he owns on our radar maps... I would be very afraid even if intel says they aren't anywhere around.

No. But I know for a fact that we can carpet-bomb every likely location and reduce it to atoms. If there are 100 possible locations for such weapons, and we know he has between 40 and 50 emplacements, we'll bomb all 100. That's a guarantee.

 

That's assuming, of course, we get all of his biological, chemical, and 'nuclear' weapons beforehand... if not, that number jumps exponentially.

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. Much more reasonable than any of your scare-tactics.

 

My point, albeit poorly stated, was that it's easier to account for tangiable resources than reports of someone attempting to purchase said tangiable resources. If he has them, it's bound to be easier to find than reports of him trying to buy them.

Wrong a third or fourth time, I've lost count. You really don't even have a basis for argument here; this is the stupidest point you've tried to make yet. Attempts to purchase may be logged by our allies or delivered to us in the form of government documents by defectors, as they have been in the past. Resources within the country essentially go behind a new iron curtain. We have information on extant resources and weapons, but it is necessarily based on projection, past behaviour, and the attempts to purchase which you ignorantly dismiss.

 

Obviously, it's absurd to think someone weighing 98 pounds would be useful on a battlefield, and thus, I abandoned the argument. However, not so shockingly, it IS possible for women to fight, albeit not ones of such small stature. Therefore, while it may have originally been a valid argument, it no longer was upon hearing the statement of your size.

We've gone into this previously as well. Women of any size are not suitable for front-line combat. If you think rape and sexual harassment are a problem in the military in peacetime, wait until you throw a woman into a foxhole with four young men and tell her that she has to depend on them to survive. Every general in the world understands this perfectly. No military professional wants women on the front lines. Maybe in a hundred years. But with current attitudes towards women? No fucking way.

 

I'm very bitter towards those who can and refuse... yet still make arguments for conflict.

Your bitterness is getting in the way of your reason. An argument is sound or unsound no matter who makes it. Your approach is called ad hominem. "Well you can't fight so you have no right to say others should." No. The case for war is the case for war. The President won't be in a tank in Iraq. Are you going to tell me that he shouldn't make the case for war either, because his office and his age exempt him from the draft? No? Then shut the fuck up, will you?

 

However, I still feel the comment was blown way out of proportion and I don't feel an apology is necessary after what obviously wasn't a personal attack.

When you anticipate and dismiss my argument in your very first post with a snide remark about my gender, it's a personal attack. Lying isn't helping your credibility.

 

It was never an argument, more like a snide comment based on my frustration with other factors.

Check your frustration at the door. This is supposed to be a forum for serious debate, not your personal venting board. Continue in this vein, and people who might have responded to you will begin to ignore you.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I'll reply in six hours, I need sleep.

 

I'm not conceding this argument, but wait until I'm awake.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Whatever.

[Guest dinki]

Once more: THEY STARTED THAT WAR, you complete fuckhead. How many times does this have to be said. The Japanese deserve NO sympathy for the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They brought it on themselves. If they had surrendered we would NEVER have bombed them.

 

erm, technically, germany started that one. america doesn't seem to have a great history of recognising the real culprit and taking them out. furthermore, there is some sympathy to be had for the countless victims and their offspring who suffered then and for years after as a result of (i'd like to point out, one and only) nuclear attack. you have just given a very good example of why so many people don't trust america to lead the world to democracy and peace - you only seem to have sympathy for your own suffering, everyone else is an inconvenience.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Let's play Jeopardy, shall we?

 

For $0.02, Dinki, what happened at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941?

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Let's play Jeopardy, shall we?

 

For $0.02, Dinki, what happened at Pearl Harbor on the morning of December 7th, 1941?

2500 American lives taken, later traded for 70,000 Japanese lives?

 

I don't know what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb, but that number still chills me.

[Guest danielisthor]

As the President said, "The first time we may be completely certain he has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one."

 

I'm not willing to take that risk. No one else of sound mind should be either.

 

If we're able to do this wonderful investigative reporting in which we reveal he has been attempting to purchase them... something that is, obviously, much harder to track than if he ACTUALLY HAS THEM... do you think we can figure out of he sneaks a nuke across the border? Methinks so.

 

In all technicalities, he doesn't need to sneak them over the border. He has a US Ambassador and UN Delegates and all their aids that all have diplomatic immunity. Any one of them could carry a dirty bomb, one of the "missing" Russian briefcase nukes, anthrax or any other biological weapon on a plane into the US.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

2500 American lives taken, later traded for 70,000 Japanese lives?

Again, they started the war, they refused to surrender, total casualty projections for a land invasion of Japan were in the hundreds of thousands, and we would never have killed anyone at all if they hadn't thrown in their lot with the madman Hitler and forced us to get involved. Besides, the 2500/70000 ratio doesn't take into account one single Allied casualty suffered during the rest of the war.

I don't know what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb, but that number still chills me.

To me that number serves as an object lesson for the world. Don't ever fuck around with the United States. Don't pick fights with us. And if you do, and we tell you to surrender, you damned well surrender, immediately and unconditionally. And if you choose to keep fighting, you bloody well don't whine about it afterwards when the wrath of God Almighty comes crashing down on your heads. You don't have the right.

[Guest dinki]

And if you choose to keep fighting, you bloody well don't whine about it afterwards when the wrath of God Almighty comes crashing down on your heads. You don't have the right.

pearl harbour, can i have my $0.02 please?

i didn't know that america = god almighty... well i prayed for a puppy last christmas, i guess you guys are the reason i didn't get it!

yet another reason (should others share tyour opinion) why a few nations are somewhat annoyed at the great us of a.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

...

 

Because they didn't get puppies? Well I know why Saddam Hussein didn't get any; he would have gassed them. And then the ASPCA would picket the White House and I'd have trouble getting to work and the President would probably yell at me, and it would just be a bad situation all around.

 

So you see.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Again, they started the war, they refused to surrender, total casualty projections for a land invasion of Japan were in the hundreds of thousands, and we would never have killed anyone at all if they hadn't thrown in their lot with the madman Hitler and forced us to get involved. Besides, the 2500/70000 ratio doesn't take into account one single Allied casualty suffered during the rest of the war.

 

Nor does the 2500/70000 ratio take into account Axis casualities. My biggest misgiving about the bombing is that it was an utterly brutal attack on civilians--with military purpose, yes, but largely civilian casualties no less. Pearl Harbor was an awful attack, but it was *at least* on a military installation. The gravity of 70,000 deaths in Hiroshima alone, largely civilian, sits worse with me. I'm torn as to whether I'd rather have that mark on our country's record, or more American military deaths due to a land invasion. I tend to lean towards the military approach.

 

To me that number serves as an object lesson for the world. Don't ever fuck around with the United States. Don't pick fights with us. And if you do, and we tell you to surrender, you damned well surrender, immediately and unconditionally.

 

It's a nice thing to have on our side, but it still disappoints me. It's necessary to be a juggernaut in the world; I just wish diplomacy had been easier to swing between the Japanese and US, so we wouldn't have this defining precedent of brutality.

 

And if you choose to keep fighting, you bloody well don't whine about it afterwards when the wrath of God Almighty comes crashing down on your heads. You don't have the right.

 

Most of your post I could nod to in one way or another, but I didn't like this very much. If an American God decides to drop an atom bomb on an average Japanese man or woman, what has he or she done to deserve this? Leaders must certainly take responsibility and the people of a nation must live with the policy dictated by their leaders, but to say that America has the right to be as God and treat the lives of other human beings as trifles...that's scary shit.

[Guest bob_barron]

What about all the Chinese people the Japanese killed and wounded?

 

And yep- the Japanese killed innocent Chinese and raped many Chinese women.

 

They get no sympathy from me

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

What about all the Chinese people the Japanese killed and wounded?

 

And yep- the Japanese killed innocent Chinese and raped many Chinese women.

 

They get no sympathy from me

Acts of rape and murder = justification for killing thousands upon thousands of innocent, uninvolved civilians?

 

I don't think that's the best reason to support the bombing of Hiroshima. Bring rapists and murderers to justice of course, but don't drop bombs on their neighbors.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nor does the 2500/70000 ratio take into account Axis casualities.

Again, the Axis started the war. The former Axis countries have no legitimate grievance for suffering in a war they started. It was their fault.

 

to say that America has the right to be as God and treat the lives of other human beings as trifles...that's scary shit.

It would be if I had said that. I didn't. I said that the America has the most staggeringly powerful military force in the history of the world, and if you go to war against us you should be prepared to suffer the consequences. Japan did, and Japan suffered.

There is no reason to think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a black mark on our record. It was a military action in a time of war. On Okinawa, a few short weeks before we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over 120,000 Japanese and Americans died. Do you seriously think fewer than half a million people at the very least would have died if we had invaded the main islands of Japan itself? We did what we did to save lives, not out of any need for "revenge," as liberals like to claim. We acted to end the war. We carry no guilt. The Japanese and the Japanese alone must bear the burden of each and every death.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

We acted to end the war. We carry no guilt. The Japanese and the Japanese alone must bear the burden of each and every death.

 

I disagree. We can trace causes and effects back as far as we want to, but the fact of the matter is that the Japanese, however responsible they may be for not surrendering, for initiating their end of the war with Pearl Harbor, did not drop the bomb on themselves. An American plane carrying an American-made bomb ordered by an American president killed 70,000 people, most of which who were not military in any fashion. We cannot simply absolve ourselves of that entirely; it is reckless, and, for lack of a better word, somewhat disgusting. Perhaps the bombing was necessary--as I said before, I'm still not really sure which approach I think would have worked best or been the most morally in the right--but that Americans should carry some guilt or responsibility for the people that they killed should, in my eyes, be unquestionable. Leading actor or not, America made that final decision.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

the Japanese... did not drop the bomb on themselves.

No, they didn't.

 

Americans should carry some guilt or responsibility for the people that they killed should, in my eyes, be unquestionable.  Leading actor or not, America made that final decision.

We were responsible for the bombing, yes, and I gladly accept that. It was the final act in a very bloody war and it ended over half a decade of insane butchery. However, I will not bear any guilt for those deaths, and I will not accept any claim that I should. Every single death should be laid solely at the feet of the Japanese government. They chose war. They chose to risk the lives of their citizens. They were warned. They ignored the warning, and they paid the price. I have no sympathy for them at all.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Marney, my biggest issue with your argument with me is your total lack of regard for the entire rest of the world.

 

By your logic, we don't need any allies. We don't need any friends. GEORGE W. BUSH IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD SAYS. This one half of the United States is the be-all and end-all of morality and dammit, if you don't like it, you can have a nuke.

 

Does anyone else see a problem with this logic?

 

If everyone else is disagreeing... well shit, since WE KNOW IT'S RIGHT, IT MUST BE!

 

 

Would this not put us on the same boat as terrorists, madam? We're fighting for what we think is right... even though nobody in the world thinks it's right.

 

Shit, by that logic, we're the terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Marney, my biggest issue with your argument with me is your total lack of regard for the entire rest of the world.

My lack of regard for the rest of the world will persist so long as the rest of the world advocates appeasement of the evil and subsidisation of torture, murder, and genocide.

 

By your logic, we don't need any allies. We don't need any friends.

Correct.

 

GEORGE W. BUSH IS RIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD SAYS.

The President has made a sound and as yet unrefuted case. I haven't heard anything in return other than whining, "it's all about oil" nonsense, and almost gleeful predictions of defeat. If someone has something substantive to say, let him say it. Until then, yes, the President is correct.

 

This one half of the United States is the be-all and end-all of morality and dammit, if you don't like it, you can have a nuke.

Moral principles are non-negotiable. We should never compromise on truth, liberty, justice, democracy, and the American way.

The use of nuclear weapons should be determined by military necessity and military necessity alone. If it takes nuclear weapons to destroy a tyrant, to free a people, to eradicate injustice, my only questions are: When do we launch, and can I press the buttons?

 

If everyone else is disagreeing... well shit, since WE KNOW IT'S RIGHT, IT MUST BE!

"If introspection reveals the self to be unjust, then no matter how base the opponent may be, will I not be afraid? If introspection reveals the self to be just, then I will go even though against a thousand or ten thousand men."

- Gichin Funakoshi

 

Would this not put us on the same boat as terrorists, madam?

No, it wouldn't, and that's really a very tired old fallacy. Drop it. We're fighting for freedom and peace. The terrorists are fighting to kill us simply because of who we are. There is both good and evil in this world and the line between them is not hard to draw. Refusing to draw that line is cowardice, pure and simple. They are wrong and we are right.

 

even though nobody in the world thinks it's right.

Morality is not determined by a vote.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

I might be getting in over my head here( and I really hope that Marney dosen't verbally draw and quarter me over this, as she probably knows more than I do ), but isn't it a theory that one of the main reasons we dropped the bombs was to scare the everliving fuck out of Russia? I seem to remember reading quite a few essays( dont ask me which, it's been a while since I took APUSH ) that said that if we were to hold out for a little while longer with regular bombings that Japan surely would have surrendered.

 

Can you shed any light on these speculations?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

My lack of regard for the rest of the world will persist so long as the rest of the world advocates appeasement of the evil and subsidisation of torture, murder, and genocide.

 

And we're sure to jump on people perpetrating any of these evils... as long as it benefits us. Otherwise, well... ya know... it's their problem...

 

The President has made a sound and as yet unrefuted case.

 

I beg to differ on the basis that many people have suggested other solutions (e.g. Letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq and, if he once again pussy-foots, then taking action) short of bombing the fuck out of them. I also implore you to see that if Mr. Bush was arguing his case before a court of law, they would throw out half of his claims based on the fact that most of it is pure speculation.

 

If it isn't, he should prove it to the American people and the world. Maybe then, we won't be having this argument.

 

Moral principles are non-negotiable. We should never compromise on truth, liberty, justice, democracy, and the American way.

 

Excuse me, madam, but if you don't think we haven't done that already, you're soundly mistaken. Truth? Have we needed truth to pursue this war with Iraq? Liberty? Under the Constitution, our rights (which, by definition, are actually liberties) are extended to all persons (not just citizens) inside of our borders. Therefore, shouldn't those thousands being held on immigration violations as 'material witnesses' be protected from false imprisonment (if they are, in fact, just witnesses), or, if they are guilty of a larger crime, a trial by jury? Justice? Are Americans who have been racially profiled... even sent to jail... getting justice? Being sent to jail because you are a certain race is justice? DEMOCRACY? A president who loses the majority vote is now in office. Define democracy, madam.

 

When do we launch, and can I press the buttons?

 

The ignorance of that comment makes me shudder in fear... especially if you really have a part in our current administration.

 

"If introspection reveals the self to be unjust, then no matter how base the opponent may be, will I not be afraid? If introspection reveals the self to be just, then I will go even though against a thousand or ten thousand men."

- Gichin Funakoshi

 

...and if you stand alone on this issue, you are no longer promoting world peace. Isn't that the goal of this whole issue... to provide stability for our country? To promote the global, and domestic, welfare? You think going and attacking everyone... disobeying our allies... alienating anyone who previously supported us... no matter how much Bush v.2.0 belives something to be true... will solve ANYTHING?

 

The terrorists are fighting to kill us simply because of who we are.

 

And why do you think they want to kill us for who we are? Hmmmm... do you truly have to think hard about this one? Perhaps because we nose into everyone's business (specifically Bush War Part Un)? Perhaps because we try to make everyone choke on what we believe to be true... even if we have no business doing so? Don't give me "We have the right to intervene because we're RIGHT!" spiel, because who judges right and wrong? Dubya himself?

 

Morality is not determined by a vote.

 

Please, madam. Alert me what determines morality.

 

Thank you for your time.

[Guest EricMM]

Maybe I'm just trying to prevent the pain, maybe if I try to make some of Marney's (valid ) points you won't get torn up as badly...

 

I beg to differ on the basis that many people have suggested other solutions (e.g. Letting weapons inspectors back into Iraq and, if he once again pussy-foots, then taking action) short of bombing the fuck out of them. I also implore you to see that if Mr. Bush was arguing his case before a court of law, they would throw out half of his claims based on the fact that most of it is pure speculation.

 

If it isn't, he should prove it to the American people and the world. Maybe then, we won't be having this argument.

At the LEAST the everloving burden of proof lies in Hussien's hands. If he does not prove to us, through UN inspectors inspecting without limit EVERYTHING, then he deserves everything he gets. And he's had that chance for years. As if he hasn't done a million other things to his people, like stealing from them to build palaces or gas them based on ethnicity. HOWS THAT FOR RACIAL PROFILING?

 

Excuse me, madam, but if you don't think we haven't done that already, you're soundly mistaken. Truth? Have we needed truth to pursue this war with Iraq? Liberty? Under the Constitution, our rights (which, by definition, are actually liberties) are extended to all persons (not just citizens) inside of our borders. Therefore, shouldn't those thousands being held on immigration violations as 'material witnesses' be protected from false imprisonment (if they are, in fact, just witnesses), or, if they are guilty of a larger crime, a trial by jury? Justice? Are Americans who have been racially profiled... even sent to jail... getting justice? Being sent to jail because you are a certain race is justice? DEMOCRACY? A president who loses the majority vote is now in office. Define democracy, madam.

1) If we wait until we have 100% proof of Iraq weapons, he may try to hurt us or someone else with them.

2) PLEASE DON'T MENTION THE 2000 ELECTION EVER AGAIN ITS OLD NEWS ARGH... I voted for Nader, but DAMN let it rest.

 

And why do you think they want to kill us for who we are? Hmmmm... do you truly have to think hard about this one? Perhaps because we nose into everyone's business (specifically Bush War Part Un)? Perhaps because we try to make everyone choke on what we believe to be true... even if we have no business doing so? Don't give me "We have the right to intervene because we're RIGHT!" spiel, because who judges right and wrong? Dubya himself?

If they think we're too powerful, why don't they change their situations? The Middle East is sitting on a gol... OIL mine, and they can't turn that $ into a decent country? If half the world got their minds right, stopped investing totally in their militaries, they might better themselves. But it doesn't seem to happen...

Alert me what determines morality.

Not gassing the Kurds.

 

I'm sick of people protesting Big Bad Bush beating up poor lil' Saddam. He. Is. A. Monster. He fucks over the Iraqi's more than we do, and he funded the 9/11 people, and he wants to kill us and WHY DOES HE DESERVE YOUR HELP???????????????????

[Guest MrRant]

Because they think America is the big bad wolf and Saddam is the little pig who is hiding from us. I blame most college professors/teachers because most are extremly liberal and teach from only a certain slant.

 

Perhaps some are like SKBF where they have read one or two lines of information and then think they understand something.

 

I don't understand everything that is going on to the detail of say Marney but at least I read past the title of the story.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

while words like good and evil are being self-righteously thrown about in blanket statements regarding other cultures, whichever way you slice it dropping the human race's one and only nuclear bomb and mass-murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians was simply put one of the most evil things ever perpetrated by humanity. america planned and carrieded out an extraordinarily 'fucking evil' act which will never ever be forgotten by the world. does that make every american evil? no. does that make what your country stands for evil? no. just as the events of 9/11 and the acts of the taleban and hussein regime do not make every innocent afghan, iraqi or moslem evil. america never targets civilians like those disgusting and inhuman terrorists do? saying you feel no guilt over hiroshima sickens me. you fucking should.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

At the LEAST the everloving burden of proof lies in Hussien's hands. If he does not prove to us, through UN inspectors inspecting without limit EVERYTHING, then he deserves everything he gets. And he's had that chance for years. As if he hasn't done a million other things to his people, like stealing from them to build palaces or gas them based on ethnicity. HOWS THAT FOR RACIAL PROFILING?

 

Saddam is not the one trying to sell an unpopular war to the world and as such, has no burden of proof. Oh, and you obviously have no grasp of what Racial Profiling actually means.

 

The comments about his own people are lacking the "oomph" because frankly, his people rebelled against him (per our suggestion). He punished them. Wasn't the nicest thing to do (understatement #1,000,000,000), but shit, it's not as if he did it for no reason.

 

2) PLEASE DON'T MENTION THE 2000 ELECTION EVER AGAIN ITS OLD NEWS ARGH... I voted for Nader, but DAMN let it rest.

 

Forgive me, I thought elections were part of the definition of democracy. I must have been mistaken.

 

If they think we're too powerful, why don't they change their situations? The Middle East is sitting on a gol... OIL mine, and they can't turn that $ into a decent country? If half the world got their minds right, stopped investing totally in their militaries, they might better themselves. But it doesn't seem to happen...

 

Because they live in the middle of a fucking desert. Please elaborate, Mr. City Builder, on how to fix that problem.

 

Oh, and you speak as if we don't have the exact same problem here. We neglect our own issues to boost our defense budget immensely... we ignore our school system, instead stating that we should ignore the 'bad' public schools, issuing vouchers for them to go to private ones. We have a failing social security plan and instead of feeding more money into it in an attempt to boost the so-called 'trust fund', we put the money towards more high-tech weapons to fight an inferior enemy in a war that was all but over by the time the budget FY2003 was released. Don't give me that because if you do, you have to look right back in the mirror at our own problems.