The W
Views: 99085554
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.9.14 0107
The W - Current Events & Politics - 48 hrs...
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2227 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
Firecracker
Salami








Since: 26.6.02
From: Miami, FL

Since last post: 3549 days
Last activity: 3384 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Wow... Bush just said that if Saddam and his sons don't leave in 48 hours... military action.

So much for a peaceful world...



Yo, it's me, it's me, it's (points to self) P-A-B!
Promote this thread!
messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 513 days
Last activity: 380 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on
As Howard Zinn said, a shameful moment. Attacking a country that is not at war with us or any other nation. Shameful.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1237 days
Last activity: 1034 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by messenoir
    As Howard Zinn said, a shameful moment. Attacking a country that is not at war with us or any other nation. Shameful.

Yeah. I suppose that you would rather let 10,000 US souls die in the next terror attack than take preventative measures to stop it. Or I suppose you like the fact that the Iraqi government tortures, murders and rapes with ruthless abandon. Yeah, there is a lot of fucking shame that a bunch of the world's countries have decdided to liberate an enslaved people.

Yeah...real fucking shameful.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 689 days
Last activity: 15 days
#4 Posted on
As bad as the news is, I have to give him credit for being honest in one regard--get ready for terror. 'Course since 9/11 it's *always* been likely but I think the dial just moved to "certain."

I figure it's only a matter of weeks before some screwhead walks into a mall with dynamite wired to his chest.

Some tough days ahead, looks like.




-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54


    Yeah. I suppose that you would rather let 10,000 US souls die in the next terror attack than take preventative measures to stop it. Or I suppose you like the fact that the Iraqi government tortures, murders and rapes with ruthless abandon. Yeah, there is a lot of fucking shame that a bunch of the world's countries have decdided to liberate an enslaved people.


Well, Iraq wasn't going to attack the USA before, since they know that they'd be decimated. Since that's going to happen anyway, Hussein may just figure "Why not?"

And I'll bet that the military ends up killing way more than 10,000 of the newly "liberated" people of Iraq.





Well Mr. Burns had done it.
The power plant had won it.
With Rogers Clemens clucking all the while.
Mike Scioscia's tragic illness made us smile.
While Wade Boggs lay unconscious on
the barroom tile.
We're talkin'...
Softball.
From Maine to San Diego.
Talkin'...
Softball.
Mattingly and Canseco.
Ken Griffey's grotesquely swollen jaw.
Steve Sax and his run-in with the law.
We're talkin' Homer...
Ozzie and the Straw.
Firecracker
Salami








Since: 26.6.02
From: Miami, FL

Since last post: 3549 days
Last activity: 3384 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by messenoir
      As Howard Zinn said, a shameful moment. Attacking a country that is not at war with us or any other nation. Shameful.

    Yeah. I suppose that you would rather let 10,000 US souls die in the next terror attack than take preventative measures to stop it. Or I suppose you like the fact that the Iraqi government tortures, murders and rapes with ruthless abandon. Yeah, there is a lot of fucking shame that a bunch of the world's countries have decdided to liberate an enslaved people.

    Yeah...real fucking shameful.



It's not shameful that we will be liberating an oppressed people. It's shameful that we need to result to a relatively unprovoked (in the sense of no attack on us first) war to do it - a war that could have 10,000 or more US souls die due to terrorism and chemical weapons.



Yo, it's me, it's me, it's (points to self) P-A-B!
HrdCoreJoe
Potato korv








Since: 29.4.02
From: Jax, FL

Since last post: 1026 days
Last activity: 1025 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
Sadam has had it coming for over a decade now, it was only a matter of time before it got picked back up so don't act like it's an unprovoked matter.



Andy Richter does indeed control the universe.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on
Bush brought up a point in his speech that I wish they would have focused on this whole time, that in my mind tosses they whole "unprovoked attack" argument out the window.

As part of Hussein's terms for surrender during the Gulf War, he agreed to disarm.

To explain that in more detail, we stopped our offensive against Iraq during the Gulf War (Which most people agreed was justified) based upon that treaty. The gist of it is, we allowed Sadaam to stay in power on the condition to end the war. We don't want war, and agreed to that compromise to bring it to an end.

Hussein has renigged on that treaty, making it null and void. In short, as of now, the original Persian Gulf War is still on. Regardless of whether or not we have been attacked directly by Hussein NOW does not have any bearing on this cause for action. We are acting on the same provokation we had on the first time around.

I agree that it is a shame where we have to live in a non-peaceful world. I, however, take the proper approach in that it is ashame that people like Hussein won't let us live in that peaceful world. If Hussein did not agree to the disarmament clause in that treaty 12 years ago, he would not be in power today. So now we are going to make him face the consequences of violating that treaty.

That aside, I agree in principle that it is a good guide to not initiate attacks on other nations unless we are attacked first. I think in the case of terrorist-sponsoring nations, this rule has to be relaxed. Anyone that supports terrorist acts against civilians deserves to have war brought upon them. Iraq, in this case, is no exception. Regardless of whether you believe or not that Iraq has directly sponsored Al Quaida, you cannot deny that they do, in fact, sponsor terrorist organizations beyond Al Quaida. They, and any other similar nation, needs to be held accountable. And it is clear from the debate over the last few months that the UN is unwilling and unable to take up that responsibility.

It is like someone who contracts someone to commit murder in this country. Even though he did not commit the actual murder, he is still tried for it and held accountable.

And where in the blue hell are you people coming up with this 10,000 dead figure? How about some arguments rooted in actual fact here- it would make your case a lot more convincing...



(edited by Pool-Boy on 17.3.03 1818)



PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2797 days
Last activity: 2640 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally Posted by BigBad
    And I'll bet that the military ends up killing way more than 10,000 of the newly "liberated" people of Iraq.


Yeah, seriously. Let's leave them alone. The Iraqi people are doing just fine under Saddam. Heck, he sure isn't killing anybody, or raping them, or anything like that.

Good grief, man. Civilian death sucks, but how you can think that Saddam staying in power is safer and better for human life than war, I don't understand. Even if the war kills 10,000 people (and I don't think it will), it will be a one-time tragedy. If we leave Saddam in power and permit his party to retain power when he dies, it will be a perpetual tragedy. But you'd prefer to leave poor Saddam alone, apparently. After all, he hasn't attacked us lately.

Furthermore, the doctrine of leaving dictators alone was tried before, and it failed then. But, hey, anything for peace, right? We didn't intervene in Rwanda, and that was peace. We never attacked Pol Pot, and we had peace there, too. Yes, peace.

(edit) And here, I found this link 5 minutes after posting this. Peace in our time.

(edited by PalpatineW on 17.3.03 2142)


"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
Chico Santana
Boudin rouge








Since: 2.7.02
From: Jaaaaamacia Mon, No Problem.

Since last post: 4022 days
Last activity: 4020 days
#10 Posted on

    Originally posted by Enojado Viento
    As bad as the news is, I have to give him credit for being honest in one regard--get ready for terror. 'Course since 9/11 it's *always* been likely but I think the dial just moved to "certain."

    I figure it's only a matter of weeks before some screwhead walks into a mall with dynamite wired to his chest.

    Some tough days ahead, looks like.



I think we are lucky we didn't suffer terror attacks from foreign terrorist before 9/11. Alot of other countries have had to deal with this type of stuff for along time. IMHO with or without action against Iraq I think we will get attacked again. For all of us I hope I'm wrong.



"SAL BANDINI, WANNA WRESTLE?"
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 689 days
Last activity: 15 days
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by Chico Santana

      Originally posted by Enojado Viento
      As bad as the news is, I have to give him credit for being honest in one regard--get ready for terror. 'Course since 9/11 it's *always* been likely but I think the dial just moved to "certain."

      I figure it's only a matter of weeks before some screwhead walks into a mall with dynamite wired to his chest.

      Some tough days ahead, looks like.



    I think we are lucky we didn't suffer terror attacks from foreign terrorist before 9/11. Alot of other countries have had to deal with this type of stuff for along time. IMHO with or without action against Iraq I think we will get attacked again. For all of us I hope I'm wrong.



Well, the war against terror is gonna be a little monkeywrenched, because we're bound to lose some of the cooperation we've had in investigating and arresting terrorists.

So that's gonna contribute to an increased terror alert, but we're commited to this path, for good or ill, aren't we?





-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#12 Posted on
Since when has the goal of the United States, and particularly of conservatives been the liberation of oppressed peoples? While I think there are some good justifications for war with Iraq, this one strikes me as hollow. Otherwise we would be ready to move on Cuba, China, Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and numerous African nations. If we want to go to war because we don't want Saddam in charge, fine. If we fear proliferation of WOMD, okay, I buy that. But to try and sell this as being out of some deep sense of concern for the Iraqi people, I call bullshit. And if you doubt that, tell me, if someone came into power who was just as brutal as Saddam but cooperated with the U.S. (kind of like Mussharaf of Pakistan) would you support a war with him?



The Most Bitter Place On The Net.

The current artist tickling my fancy: Brenda Weiler


Immortality
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3525 days
Last activity: 3525 days
#13 Posted on
The problem, I have with Iraqi and the war on terror is two forld.

1. They really had nothing to do with Sept. 11th. I mean thats the guys we want right? I'd say the US had more to do with the attack then Iraq, we gave Bin Laden, the weapons, cash and room he needed to manuever. We also ignored a number of red flags about the attack. If Saddam helped coordinator the attacks, then fine kill them all, but I haven't seen that evidence. If the case is haboring Bin Laden, then why not attack Saudi Arabi or Pakistan? It really doesn't make sense to waist all of this manpower when Bin Laden is still out there. I'd rather see more arrests then full blown war with a country we just don't like or a country that broke a UN resolution. Shit, thats almost everyone in that building.

2. Motives. I don't see the clear and just motives here. Is Saddam a dictator? Yes. Should be killed? Hella Yeah. Will making war with a Iraqi accomplish any of the goals to defeat the terrorist? No. It will only create more choas. More Muslium groups will start planning more attacks while the Government continues to build more camps in Cuba. Which will lead to more civil unrest at home. Its clear now the US's power in the UN is now diminished and I'd say embarrassed. Going after Saddam has already cost us dearly already. We are now seen as bully rather than a protector. The motives to cause this much damage are not clear unless you count greed and vengance. Oil has a lot to do with it, but I think thats the red herring. Bush wants to kill the man who tried to kill his Father no matter the cost. Since, they got into power, the administration has had plan to get Iraq, Septh 11th gave them the oppurtinity and now they are going to use it. Those are the only motives I see.

You can make some good arguments for Iraq to be disarmed by now instead of us finding more weapons. However, Saddam's plans have only be regional in scope. He probably has logically seen he can't beat the US and if did try to go after them, he would be a dead man. If he could have taken out Israel then he would have done it already. Lets remember Israel has the bomb too. So, how is the real threat here, Saddam who hates America, but knows fucking with them hardcore will lead to his demise or Israel who has US backing for almost everything and has nuclear device or N.Korea who seems to be waiting for the right moment to strike when our backs are turned.

A Fan- In the end, it doesn't matter which who wins, either way people will die needlessly in this war.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by spf2119
    tell me, if someone came into power who was just as brutal as Saddam but cooperated with the U.S. (kind of like Mussharaf of Pakistan) would you support a war with him?


yes




It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#15 Posted on
Well, if the crazy ass Muslim extremists didn't hate us before, they sure do now. It's safe to say we're ALL fucked now and the gloves will now be off. I'm personally scared to death that LAX may be the next terrorist target because of Bush's impatience. And living here at Loyola Marymount University, it's safe to say that if that happens, you may not see It's False posting much longer.




Forget Brock! TRINITY is the Next Big Thing! Congrats to both Kid Kash and TRINITY~! on signing long-term deals with TNA!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1283 days
Last activity: 49 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by It's False
    Well, if the crazy ass Muslim extremists didn't hate us before, they sure do now. It's safe to say we're ALL fucked now and the gloves will now be off. I'm personally scared to death that LAX may be the next terrorist target because of Bush's impatience. And living here at Loyola Marymount University, it's safe to say that if that happens, you may not see It's False posting much longer.

So you don't fight back against your enemies, because it might make them mad and want to strike at you more?
Damn... I am glad we have leaders that don't think like that right now.




The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 157 days
Last activity: 3 days
#17 Posted on
My take: If there's a crack dealer who's been sitting on your block for several years after breaking into somebody else's house, and he's still got the rocks that the law says he can't have, and he still beats up other people in his house...you still send the cops after him, even if you might break a couple of windows, and even though the cops might get shot at.

Saddam is in violation of both the Gulf War truce and UN Resolution 1441...which I believe gives the coalition all the authority they need to kick his mustached butt out of Baghdad once and for all.

And am I the only one who thinks that splitting Iraq (which was drawn up on some British diplomat's cocktail napkin around WWI anyway, wasn't it?) into ethnic zones might not be such a bad thing? I mean, the Kurds are a people without a country. If we make the northern no-fly zone into Kurdistan, they'd have a home. Sure, Turkey's worried that'll spur their Kurds into independence overdrive...but if they had their own country, wouldn't they go there a'la Jews to Israel in 1947?

Then give the southern no-fly zone to the Shi'ites. Remember, they had enough folks down there to briefly revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War. That would leave central Iraq mostly in the hands of Sunni Arabs...and whoever is in power after Saddam.

I don't think that would help Iran out too much, would it? Sure, they'd be the dominant power in the region again, and they're working on the bomb, but isn't their government on a slow burn towards being not so Islamic-zealot?

Ugh...too much to think about at 4:45 am CDT.



Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.

.
.
THE THRILL
All-Star Championship Wrestling Home Video Technical Director...& A2NWO 4 Life!
The Evolution Continues!

The A2NWO proudly presents ACW: ASSAULT ON ALGOMA!
Saturday, March 29th, at the Algoma Youth Club in...uh...Algoma, WI!

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on
    Originally posted by Firecracker
    It's not shameful that we will be liberating an oppressed people. It's shameful that we need to result to a relatively unprovoked (in the sense of no attack on us first) war to do it - a war that could have 10,000 or more US souls die due to terrorism and chemical weapons.
    (emphasis mine)

Surely you're not advocating *waiting* until the next big terror attack? No thanks. I've already been through that scenario.

I've probably said this before, but 1441 contains ALL the necessary language to make action possible, despite all the talk of additional resolutions. If it turns out that we blow out Iraq as quickly as in 1991, I'm sure Kofi Annan is smart enough to find a way to cite it and retroactively approve the American action.

(edited by CRZ on 18.3.03 0312)



©CRZ™
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1237 days
Last activity: 1034 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by spf2119
    But to try and sell this as being out of some deep sense of concern for the Iraqi people, I call bullshit.

OK, let me turn this around. During the 1990's, liberals supporter US military incursions for 'humanitarian reasons' into Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Those were for "humanitarian reasons" and for the "liberation of the oppressed." What's the difference? At least in this instance, there is also a clear and present danger to our livelihood and our existance.


    Originally posted by spf2119
    And if you doubt that, tell me, if someone came into power who was just as brutal as Saddam but cooperated with the U.S. (kind of like Mussharaf of Pakistan) would you support a war with him?

Yes...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 145 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by It's False
    Well, if the crazy ass Muslim extremists didn't hate us before, they sure do now. It's safe to say we're ALL fucked now and the gloves will now be off. I'm personally scared to death that LAX may be the next terrorist target because of Bush's impatience. And living here at Loyola Marymount University, it's safe to say that if that happens, you may not see It's False posting much longer.


This is the kind of thinking that we need to turn around to insure that there aren't more attacks.

We need this to read as follows:


    Originally posted by Crazy Ass Muslim extremist
    Well if the American's didn't hate us before they sure do now. It's safe to say we're ALL fucked now and the gloves will now be off. I'm personally scared to death that Baghdad will be the next target due to Saddam's stupidity. And living here in the Middle East, it's safe to say that if that happens, you may not see Crazy Ass Muslim extremist posting much longer.


They need to have the fear that they will be decimated if they attack Americans, or try to snub their nose at resolutions that the world community imposed on them for past transgressions.

(edited by cranlsn on 18.3.03 0844)



When all else fails, there's always the Simpsons.

Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Woods: Film biz 'almost lunatic liberal'
Next thread: Strange thought....
Previous thread: Arrogant Superpower?
(2227 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
(Missed one? http://wienerboard.com/cagcotd.php) TODD RICHARD "THE BUM HUNTER" LEWIS (I) Two of hearts (brokennewz.com) in the California Governor Candidate Deck of Cards (brokennewz.com) Better known as (I guess):
The W - Current Events & Politics - 48 hrs...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.