How big of a reality is it that.....

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Are you kidding me NoCal? That's EXACTLY what Hussein did to all dissenters.

 

If a muslim boy's family is slaughtered right before his eyes while he is in school

Where do you come up with this shit? The USA doesn't target civilians. PERIOD. I seriously don't understand the antiwar and how they came up with the notion that the 1st thing the military does in a war is massacre innocents. We don't do that. Were these people awake for the war?

[Zorin Industries 0]

Where do you come up with this shit? The USA doesn't target civilians. PERIOD. I seriously don't understand the antiwar and how they came up with the notion that the 1st thing the military does in a war is massacre innocents. We don't do that. Were these people awake for the war?

Yes, but accidents do happen, especially in war, the kids parents would still be dead and he probably wouldn't accept "it was an accident, but at least your free" as a good explanation

[Guest DrTom]

... what has the last 20 days of one-sided obliteration shown to help the argument that Iraq was a threat to our national security?

I can't believe how many people are saying this and pretending it's valid. Their military was never the threat. Ther threats came from WMD and ties to terrorism, both of which were directly attributable to the dictatorial regime.

[Guest SP-1]

The war also isn't over so the 20 Day timespan doesn't hold up. The searching for the weapons is going to take time, and the war isn't completely over yet either.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Where do you come up with this shit? The USA doesn't target civilians. PERIOD. I seriously don't understand the antiwar and how they came up with the notion that the 1st thing the military does in a war is massacre innocents. We don't do that. Were these people awake for the war?

Yes, but accidents do happen, especially in war, the kids parents would still be dead and he probably wouldn't accept "it was an accident, but at least your free" as a good explanation

I didn't say accidents. Read what you quote.

 

And if every military accident, while tragic, breeds a bin Laden... then we're fucked before we even get out of bed.

 

You might as well gulp down the cyanide and call it a day.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Where do you come up with this shit? The USA doesn't target civilians. PERIOD. I seriously don't understand the antiwar and how they came up with the notion that the 1st thing the military does in a war is massacre innocents. We don't do that. Were these people awake for the war?

Yes, but accidents do happen, especially in war, the kids parents would still be dead and he probably wouldn't accept "it was an accident, but at least your free" as a good explanation

I didn't say accidents. Read what you quote.

 

And if every military accident, while tragic, breeds a bin Laden... then we're fucked before we even get out of bed.

 

You might as well gulp down the cyanide and call it a day.

Well, you better start gulping, since there is the saying that "this generation's orphans are the next generation's terrorists". The easiest example is that al Qaeda grew out of the wreck that was post-Soviet Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar movement/group appear in another ten years from the same area, but that's regardless.

 

Back on topic to Syria, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that they're next. Look at the headlines recently, even a week and a half or so ago they "killed an American". Now they've officially "been suspected of harboring chemical weapons" - the propaganda's here and we're not even done in Iraq yet. The only reason I think we might not go through is there's no "name value" in Syria. There's no figure that's easily recognizable a la "Afghanistan Bin Laden BAD~!" or "Iraq Saddam BAD~!". I think that's what they're trying now when they have headlines saying that Syria is offering asylum to Iraqi leaders, but I think, especially if it turns out there never were any WMD in Iraq (standard liberal disclaimer: which I still don't believe, but a lot in this folder don't, hence the if), that it'd be even harder to convince people of the need to conquer Syria than it was to conquer Iraq.

[Guest EricMM]

so evenflow you think that this whole war was about popularity for Bush?

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Swiftly installing a working, prosperous democracy in Iraq will do more for US interests in the Middle East then any amount of hard-nosed bullying. Religion can only stand for so long in the face of a better quality of life. Simply battering around the Arab nations sets a dangerous precedent. It gives nations such as India, Russia and China carte blanche to attack whichever of their enemies they feel like. Using current US rationale, China could over-run Tibet, Taiwan and North Korea simply because they pose a threat to Chinese security. India could attack Pakistan, they have WMD. Military action should not be made the norm for international diplomacy. The US can control their own wars, but not the wars of others.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Ok first off, I never said we were targeting civilians. All I am saying is that there will be orphens that are created during this war and they are prime candidates to be brainwashed. They are young and impressionable. Just like the KKK/Aryan brotherhood does it here in America, they usually target kids from broken homes and single parent children, why would it be any different over in IRAQ. I never said it is OUR fault, either, but it is something that is most likely going to happen.

[Guest NoCalMike]

... what has the last 20 days of one-sided obliteration shown to help the argument that Iraq was a threat to our national security?

I can't believe how many people are saying this and pretending it's valid. Their military was never the threat. Ther threats came from WMD and ties to terrorism, both of which were directly attributable to the dictatorial regime.

Can you honestly say we have found a SUFFICIENT amount of anything besides bug pesticide to warrant the "WMD" reasoning? I mean for christs sake, we are already shifting the WMD blame to Syria, saying they are hiding all the WMD and that is why we can't find them in Iraq. Oh and they also sent night goggles into Iraq. ha.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well I never thought the war with Iraq ITSELF would produce that much US casulties, but if we start attempting to sweep through nations, it may make them desperate enough to band together, increase the use of guerilla warfare and try more attempts of attacking the USA through the use of methods laid out on sept. 11th.

 

As far as Syria goes, the point I was trying to make was that the war in Iraq is not done, yet I hear Syria's name brought up more than Iraq over the past week every night, which makes me feel suspicious. Now suddenly Rumsfield is saying how they have ALWAYS been this or that, even though they were left out of the "axis of evil" It has already been eluded to by this administration that the reason we haven't found WMD is because Syria is hiding them, and all the Iraqi leaders are being held there. Oh and they sent some Night vision goggles into Iraq. For me, they better build a better argument before the bombs start dropping over Syria.

I'll go ahead and say it --- if we choose to overthrow EVERY Islamofacist regime in the Middle East, we could do it COMPLETELY inside of 6 months. I have ZERO concern about the Middle Eastern states "ganging" up on us --- they STILL couldn't HOPE to compete. And should they decide to "gang" up, we could just inform Israel that their restraint is no longer needed in the area.

 

Why is Syria mentioned? Because they harbor terrorists, they support terrorism, and they helped Iraq. Let their dime-a-dozen despot rot if he chooses to make idiotic decisions. I have NO sympathy for ANY of the little despots in that region.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Well you gotta wonder. If a muslim boy's family is slaughtered right before his eyes while he is in school, you'd think he becomes a MUCH EASIER target for muslim-extremists to take in and brainwash. I mean, how do you explain to a kid, "umm, your family was decimated in the name of liberation/homeland security" I know that is probably a worst-case scenario, but on a more serious note, what has the last 20 days of one-sided obliteration shown to help the argument that Iraq was a threat to our national security?

Little kids being thrown into prison for not joining th Ba'ath Party didn't exactly incite major opposition to Hussein, did it?

 

Unlike Saddam, we're FEEDING Iraqis and trying to fix the problems.

-=Mike

[Guest B-X]

Why is Syria mentioned? Because they harbor terrorists, they support terrorism, and they helped Iraq. Let their dime-a-dozen despot rot if he chooses to make idiotic decisions. I have NO sympathy for ANY of the little despots in that region.

                    -=Mike

Jesus fucking Christ...

 

It hasn't even been a week, and you've already accepted the Administrations allusions to "Unoffical Axis of Evil member Syria" as Gods Own Word. For fucks sake, they haven't even come out and said anything incriminating about Syria, other then "They're high on our list of terrorist-harboring nations".

 

If you are going to be Rumsfields parrot, at least wait until he fucking says the phrase you intend to regurgitate ad naseaum.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

so evenflow you think that this whole war was about popularity for Bush?

Hmmm? That's not what I said at all. I said that the propaganda was already being spun for another war in Syria (since "war is peace" and "peace is patriotic", hence "war is patriotic"), but that there was no popularly hated figurehead in Syria so it might be more difficult. I'd venture a vast majority of people aren't fully aware of why we went to war in Afghanistan or our current situation with Iraq, however they know that "BIN LADEN BAD~!" and "SADDAM BAD~!" because they're popular villains. There's no name-brand hatred in Syria. I didn't even mention the President, although now that you mention it...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I've read a view stories questioning how much power the Syrian President really has. There's a lot of leftover members of his fathers administration who are said to cause the biggest problems.

[Guest teke184]

Why is Syria mentioned? Because they harbor terrorists, they support terrorism, and they helped Iraq. Let their dime-a-dozen despot rot if he chooses to make idiotic decisions. I have NO sympathy for ANY of the little despots in that region.

                     -=Mike

Jesus fucking Christ...

 

It hasn't even been a week, and you've already accepted the Administrations allusions to "Unoffical Axis of Evil member Syria" as Gods Own Word. For fucks sake, they haven't even come out and said anything incriminating about Syria, other then "They're high on our list of terrorist-harboring nations".

 

If you are going to be Rumsfields parrot, at least wait until he fucking says the phrase you intend to regurgitate ad naseaum.

You're acting like Syria just came from out of the fucking blue... that country has supported Hezbollah for decades and was involved in the bombing of our marine barracks in Lebanon during the early 80s. Considering that Hezbollah and the Israelis are warring right now, it's not too much of a surprise that we'd want to make a stop off at their host country before coming home.

[Guest Austin3164life]

All I have to say is that as long as America and any other Western nation is involved in the Middle Eastern affairs, true peace will never be acheived in that region.

[Guest teke184]

All I have to say is that as long as America and any other Western nation is involved in the Middle Eastern affairs, true peace will never be acheived in that region.

Clinton got too involved and the region went to war. (IMHO, it was because he tried to force a peace on them they weren't ready for in the closing days of his term)

 

Bush pulled out of the initiatives that Clinton started in the region and the Arabs went batshit.

 

 

Just short of the President saying "Fuck the Israelis, no more aid", the Arabs aren't going to be happy with what we do. That's a remote possibility at best for the forseeable future as we have much stronger ties to the Israelis than we do with any Arab state.

[Guest nikowwf]

What historical precendent is there that when the west comes in, wars follow? Its probably true, but its not an A leads to B. Its WAR WAS THERE BEFORE, west comes in, WAR WAS THERE AFTER. They've been quite good at killing each other even without western influence.

 

niko

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Why is Syria mentioned? Because they harbor terrorists, they support terrorism, and they helped Iraq. Let their dime-a-dozen despot rot if he chooses to make idiotic decisions. I have NO sympathy for ANY of the little despots in that region.

                     -=Mike

Jesus fucking Christ...

 

It hasn't even been a week, and you've already accepted the Administrations allusions to "Unoffical Axis of Evil member Syria" as Gods Own Word. For fucks sake, they haven't even come out and said anything incriminating about Syria, other then "They're high on our list of terrorist-harboring nations".

 

If you are going to be Rumsfields parrot, at least wait until he fucking says the phrase you intend to regurgitate ad naseaum.

Admittedly, actually LEARNING about things BEFORE they become big issues is a foreign concept for some around here.

 

It's not like Syria's terrorist ties weren't QUITE well known for a LONG time.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

All I have to say is that as long as America and any other Western nation is involved in the Middle Eastern affairs, true peace will never be acheived in that region.

Well, this is a new world and they can't avoid contact with Western countries.

=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Here's a few things I've learned from just a little research and reading papers.

 

Syria despite being in possesion of Chemical Weapons has never used them on anyone, unlike Iraq. Syria hasn't been DIRECTLY connected to any terrorist actions in over 20 years, They DO harbor terrerist ghroups but the groups are kept on a tighter leash and are monitered to an extent.

 

Syyria is ruled by a Rival Branch Of The Same Ba'Ath party that led Iraq but it is not led by someone as insane as Saddam Huessin, Syria hasn't committed genoicde Like Iraq has.

 

If there's no proof they intend to USE the wapons...then why invade?

[Guest Powerplay]

Here's a few things I've learned from just a little research and reading papers.

 

Syria despite being in possesion of Chemical Weapons has never used them on anyone, unlike Iraq. Syria hasn't been DIRECTLY connected to any terrorist actions in over 20 years, They DO harbor terrerist ghroups but the groups are kept on a tighter leash and are monitered to an extent.

 

Syyria is ruled by a Rival Branch Of The Same Ba'Ath party that led Iraq but it is not led by someone as insane as Saddam Huessin, Syria hasn't committed genoicde Like Iraq has.

 

If there's no proof they intend to USE the wapons...then why invade?

We aren't invading. We never said we were, and we probably won't. All they need to do is disarm/destroy their chemical weapons, give up any Iraqi governmental figures they are hiding (Right now they supposedly have the head of Intelligence in their country, who is a massive figure), and start agressively going after terrorist groups within their nation.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I agree with giving up the Iraqi Government officals but why shopuld they destroy THEY'RE weapons??

 

They have the right to defend themselves. AMerica has WMD, shouldn't you have to give them up too?

 

and I agree in principal with getting rid of Terrorist organizations but the US should do it too, since you have things like the KKK,Aryan Nation,etc.

[Guest Powerplay]

I agree with giving up the Iraqi Government officals but why shopuld they destroy THEY'RE weapons??

 

They have the right to defend themselves. AMerica has WMD, shouldn't you have to give them up too?

 

and I agree in principal with getting rid of Terrorist organizations but the US should do it too, since you have things like the KKK,Aryan Nation,etc.

Then again, how likely are ours to fall into terrorist hands? Syria with chemical weapons = Liability that shouldn't be overlooked. While we have them, we are able to keep them away from bad hands much better than Syria and Syria is still an iffy nation as well. They have a right do defend themselves, but not with chemical weapons. Neither do we. That's the Geneva convention for ya.

 

Secondly, we keep a far, far tighter leash on the Aryan Nation and the KKK and all our other hate groups than Syria does. Also, these terrorists would be attacking our nation, not someone elses, which is the case for Syria. The terrorist there won't be attacking Syria but Israel, the U.S., Britain, etc.

 

Edit: Keep that sig pic, CWM. I think the Bush one is actually funny, while the Iwo Jima one I find slightly distasteful.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Why do we even have chemical weapons? It seriously is a bit hypocritical.

[Guest Powerplay]

Why do we even have chemical weapons? It seriously is a bit hypocritical.

So we can create defenses against them, same with our Biologicals. As stated a while back, ours are defensive in nature.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Regardless of which, we still HAVE THEM. Saying we're the only ones allowed to have them is totally and utterly hypocritical, regardless of whether or not we protect them better than these other rogue nations. We should set the example by starting to disarm our own WMDs...

 

...but that will never happen.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Hypocritical?" Do you support the NNPT?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Clarify the NNPT, I'm rather dumb.