The W
Views: 97600528
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 0826
The W - Current Events & Politics - 48 hrs... (Page 2)
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2223 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2774 days
Last activity: 2774 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
CRZ sez:

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


But attacking Iraq is going to increase the chances of a next big terror attack, not decrease it. It's awesome recruiting for Al Queda. And despite the Bush Admins best efforts, they have come up empty on linking Saddam to Al Queda and Sept. 11, so it's not really a part of the War on Terror after all.

And to say that "Iraq is trying to build WOMD which could fall into the hands of terrorists" is a terrible argument --if Islamic terrorists are going to get hold of a nuke, they are going to get it from our friends and allies Pakistan, who already have the Bomb and who have supported the terrorists in the past.

Grimis sez:

    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?


In Somalia, the warlords were using food as a weapon in their civil war, with the result that there was a clear and present danger that tens of thousands of people would starve to death, on a scale of the Ethiopian disaster of the 1980s. In the Balkans, the Serbian army was running amok trying to keep the Yugoslavian state intact, and there was a clear and present danger that the war would spread to Albania and Greece. Besides, the U.S. didn't invade these countries at a time of peace ... they helped out a side in an existing war.

In Iraq, Saddam has an army which is weak and not a threat to any of its neighbours, there has been no public evidence that he is any closer to attaining WOMD than he was a decade ago (in fact, the biological weapons he had will have become inert by now), and there is no clear and present danger to America, now or in the foreseeable future.

International law agrees that countries can resort to force in self-defence after an attack (the war in Afganistan was justified after Sept. 11) or in the face of a clear and present danger that an attack will occur. This is not the case in Iraq today. In invading Iraq, the U.S. is going to set a very bad precedent for the future -- if Russia decides to invade Kazihkstan for its oil, I mean in a war against terrorists, what can the U.S. now say to oppose it? The precedent has been set, and it will lead to a more violent and unstable world.






If it's true a rich man leads a sad life
(that's what they say, from day to day),
Then what do all the poor do with their lives
On Judgement Day -- with nothing to say?

------------------------------------------------
Joe Strummer Lives!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on
Did anyone else notice that Bush said "do not destory oil wells" before "do not use weapons of mass destruction"?



cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 85 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#23 Posted on

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Did anyone else notice that Bush said "do not destory oil wells" before "do not use weapons of mass destruction"?


Yes I did...and I didn't have a problem with it. Your point?




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

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1177 days
Last activity: 974 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Did anyone else notice that Bush said "do not destory oil wells" before "do not use weapons of mass destruction"?

Yes because to rebuild the Iraqi economy, they have to be able to sell the oil.


    Originally posted by Gavintzu

    International law agrees that countries can resort to force in self-defence after an attack (the war in Afganistan was justified after Sept. 11) or in the face of a clear and present danger that an attack will occur. This is not the case in Iraq today. In invading Iraq, the U.S. is going to set a very bad precedent for the future -- if Russia decides to invade Kazihkstan for its oil, I mean in a war against terrorists, what can the U.S. now say to oppose it? The precedent has been set, and it will lead to a more violent and unstable world.


1. There is this myth that there is actually international law. There really is not.
2. In invading Iraq, the US is enforcing a UN resolution that the UN does not have the balls to enforce. And as Pool-Boy pointed out earlier, he is in violation of the peace agreement that stopped Gulf War I.
3. See above for the reason that Russia invading Kazakhstan is different.



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








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 1 day
#25 Posted on
While up until now I had been only willing to support a war subsequent to a new reslution being passed by the UN giving Saddam a clear deadline, I believe this became impossible due to the actions of the French.

They would veto anything that involved an ultimatum threatning military action. What the hell did they want us to do? Ask Saddam repeatedly if he'll give up all his weapons until we charm him to death with our diplomacy?

The only reason this guys made any concessions is due to the threat of action. In the absence of a deadline he would have never disarmed completely and certainaly would not have abdicated power.

As a result, sadly military action is now probably unavoidable, and while many innocent lives will be lost, hopefully many more will be saved in the long term.

My only problem now is with the continued insistance of Bush that Iraq has undeniable links to al Qaeda. Even Blair in his speech today said that such evidence was 'weak'.

War will hopefully rid the world of an evil dictator who was a threat to his own people and his neighbours. Bush shouldn't need to add in this sort of bullshit rhetoric to make his case.





"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 387 days
Last activity: 387 days
#26 Posted on
This idea that this will increase Arab hatred of the U.S. is a little bit of a stretch. They hate us already, why would this change their opinion. And, since when is American policy dictated by how the people who hate us react?
If there is going to be a counterstrike by terrorists, its going to be in France, not the U.S. These cowards prey on the appearance of weakness, and no one looks weaker now than the French. Had Bush in '91 finished the job, most of the shit we've had to deal with the past few years would not have happened. However, we didn't finish the job, and we never effectively retaliated in the 90's every time we were attacked, thus the cowards viewed the U.S. as a soft target that would not respond.
But, then again, the Taliban army was supposed to rout the U.S. and begin a giant jihad against the West, and we know how successful that was.



If it wasn't for war, you wouldn't know what peace was.
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Did anyone else notice that Bush said "do not destory oil wells" before "do not use weapons of mass destruction"?

    Yes because to rebuild the Iraqi economy, they have to be able to sell the oil.



No, WE have to be able to sell the oil. That's all this shit is about... oil.



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3740 days
Last activity: 2807 days
#28 Posted on
Oh come on, are you people still hanging on to that? Does this situation make any sense?:

We go into Iraq, remove Saddam, then steal all of their oil leaving them with no money to build an economy with. Of course it doesn't.

There are multiple levels of argument in this conflict. The level for 3 year olds is claiming that the war is for oil, or that he's trying to finish what his daddy did. If you're going to talk about the aftermath cost, or whether he's an iminent threat, that's legitimate, but just because "no blood for oil" fits well on a sign doesn't mean it's an intelligent argument. "Buck Fush" makes a nice sign too.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1223 days
Last activity: 23 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on
Jesus!
Bush tells Iraqi soldiers not to burn oil fields. For one, do you know the environmental damage that causes? Two, it is not like we can take the oil for ourselves, but it damned sure make sense that we want the Iraqis to have the oil so that we don't have to foot the entire rebuilding bill ourselves.

So Bush warned against creating environmental havoc, and the destruction of Iraqs future wealth. And that makes the war "all about oil."

Damn people, it is not like we are deploying Exxon tankers with our fleets, ready to pump the oil out of the ground to give it to the American oil companies. The argument it so completely used and tired it is almost not worth arguing anymore. YOU USE IT EVERY TIME! Afghanistan was so we could build a pipeline for oil. Gulf I was for oil. Hell, VIETNAM was for oil. And every single time, it turns out not to be about oil at all.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? I would think you would learn by now that it is NEVER about oil...




oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1895 days
Last activity: 1829 days
#30 Posted on
"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?
Grimis: Yes..."

And therein lies the rub: You may support a war, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the administration would have no problems in making nice-nice with a dictatorship for their own gain. Check the history book, folks-that's why the humanitarian argument just doesn't wash with me.

And I don't think ANYONE is saying we should wait until another terrorist attack before doing something to prevent it happening. But there are hundreds of better solutions to the current terrorism problem than going to war with a nation that may or may not have terrorist links and may or may not play some role in bankrolling West-targetting terrorists in the future. The hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into this war could be-SHOULD be-used to bolster our intelligence, to seek out terrorists in our OWN countries, to take out those cells that are already operative and who pose a real and active threat. We take care of THESE issues, and THEN I'll support a blanket war of Iraq to mop up the last possibilities of global terrorism. But that should be the last step in taking care of international terrorism, not the first. I mean, let's try dealing with the TERRORISTS first, rather than starting a war with those who may possibly just supply them at some indeterminate later date.

See, a war with one specific country does squat to counter terrorism-because it's not based in one country. This is what makes these organisations so threatening: You can't simply cut off the head and watch it die. Destroying global terrorism requires a precision instrument, utilising intelligence, covert operations, and undercover strikes to eliminate the well-hidden targets. Not like this-it's akin to using a sledgehammer to splat a spider.

So, take away the theory of "This is a huge step in the war against terrorism" and what are you left with? A contradictory "They've broken UN rules" argument, which is blown out of the water right off of the bat by numerous reasons, ie. Isreal trampling over countless UN resolutions and being tolerated persistently. And, of course, the little matter of the Bush Administration treating the UN like an afterthoought and then using THEIR rules as a justification for an attack. You can't have your cake and eat it-either you follow the will of the UN, or you operate entirely outside of it. You can't base your reasoning for a war around UN resolutions and then disregard that governing body when it suits you.

Oh, and just to add a little addendum: I hate Chirac as much as the next guy, but I really think the generalised racism towards France is incredibly childish and petulant. The French government is being totally stubborn and unreasonable, of course-but then the same argument can be made of the Bush administration's want for war throughout this entire situation. I'm not the one to MAKE that argument, but it could be made.

Hope all of that came out coherent.



Hail To The King, Baby

redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 387 days
Last activity: 387 days
#31 Posted on

    Originally posted by oldschoolherobr>Oh, and just to add a little addendum: I hate Chirac as much as the next guy, but I really think the generalised racism towards France is incredibly childish and petulant. The French government is being totally stubborn and unreasonable, of course-but then the same argument can be made of the Bush administration's want for war throughout this entire situation. I'm not the one to MAKE that argument, but it could be made.

    Hope all of that came out coherent.








To be fair though, some of use were way ahead of the curve and hated the French before it became fashionable. This PC'ing of French products helps gives us French bashers a bad name.



If it wasn't for war, you wouldn't know what peace was.
The Masked Hungarian
Pickled pork








Since: 23.1.02
From: Staten Island NY USA

Since last post: 3297 days
Last activity: 3297 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on

    Originally posted by Firecracker

      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.




If Iraq DOESN'T have any chemical weapons then this should be just like the Gulf War - quick and painless.

However if Iraq uses chemical weapons on our troops it proves how incompetent the UN really is.

And maybe with Saddam out the Iraq scientists won't be afraid to talk to our government about what they've been doing the last 12 years. Perhaps the threat of their families being slaughtered shut them up a bit.
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 213 days
Last activity: 184 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
"Only the dead have seen the end of war"
Plato

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Iraq shouldn't have the kind of weapons it does, or the control over it's people that it does. What pissed me off was the way Bush made it seem like his way was the only possible correct way to deal with terror or to run a country. Military action to be used to liberate a country, not to tell them how to run it. It's not our duty as free citizens to tell others what to do, it's our duty to give them the choice and let them decide for themselves.

Get ready for the fire to start raining down...it's gonna be a bad rest of the year.



Whoo!!
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Jesus!
    Bush tells Iraqi soldiers not to burn oil fields. For one, do you know the environmental damage that causes? Two, it is not like we can take the oil for ourselves, but it damned sure make sense that we want the Iraqis to have the oil so that we don't have to foot the entire rebuilding bill ourselves.

    So Bush warned against creating environmental havoc, and the destruction of Iraqs future wealth. And that makes the war "all about oil."

    Damn people, it is not like we are deploying Exxon tankers with our fleets, ready to pump the oil out of the ground to give it to the American oil companies. The argument it so completely used and tired it is almost not worth arguing anymore. YOU USE IT EVERY TIME! Afghanistan was so we could build a pipeline for oil. Gulf I was for oil. Hell, VIETNAM was for oil. And every single time, it turns out not to be about oil at all.

    Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? I would think you would learn by now that it is NEVER about oil...



Vietnam was for false pride, and we all saw where THAT lead.

Gulf I WAS for oil. The end of that war did NOT see Sadaam run out, it saw him staying in power and his country pumping out MORE OIL for us. The only reason we ever go to war anymore is because of money. If this was not the case, why weren't we doing more for Bosnia? Oh yeah, that's right... they have nothing of importance.



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3740 days
Last activity: 2807 days
#35 Posted on
And Elvis is still alive.
Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.74

    Originally posted by Michrome
    And Elvis is still alive.


Of course he is... him, JFK, 2Pac, and Andy Kaufman have a house up in the Hamptons, didn't you know?



Cerebus: Barbarian, Prime Minister, Pope, Perfect House Guest.

"Graft is as necessary as throwing up when you drink too much."
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 97 days
Last activity: 82 days
#37 Posted on
"America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team...then you should get the hell out of the stadium. Go America." --Stan Marsh, South Park

    Originally posted by Cerebus

    Gulf I WAS for oil. The end of that war did NOT see Sadaam run out, it saw him staying in power and his country pumping out MORE OIL for us.



[Austin]

Uh...liberation of occupied Kuwait...WHAT?

Uh...UN oil-for-food program usurped by Saddam to continue funneling money into military and weapons programs while Iraqi people dependent on government for food starved...WHAT?

[/Austin]



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!

Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Woods: Film biz 'almost lunatic liberal'
Next thread: Strange thought....
Previous thread: Arrogant Superpower?
(2223 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I actually had completely forgotten about this story after it was buried by the media during the summer, but it looks like Berger is taking the blame for it: Good. I hope he gets the maximum sentence. EDIT:
The W - Current Events & Politics - 48 hrs... (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.153 seconds.