Question: What's wrong with the Iraqi War?

[xzxzzx]

Those who disagree with the "War on Saddam":

WHY? I truly do not understand. Let me tell the stupid reasons, so you will not have to stupidly post them yourselves:

[list=1]
War for oil!

Where does the US get most of it's (imported) oil from?

Canada!

Saddam already destroyed their weapons!

Yeah, sure they did. That why it's taken 10+ years. I assume I don't have to post what the chief weapons inspector has been saying.

Saddam is really an OK guy.

Torture (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ). Does that mean anything to you? Ever heard of the Gulf War?

But the US supported Iraq in the past!

So? Mistakes can be made. And even so, that is the incorrect action, in that case, not the war.

But people will die!

An unfortunate "side effect" - terrible. Remember that Saddam kills people, too.

There are more diplomatic options!

Ok. Name one.

We need UN agreement!

France said (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6130852%255E401,00.html) it would veto ANY resolution that approves force. In that case, we cannot get UN agreement.

The weapons inspectors need more time!

This is the argument France is making. How much more? 10 more years? Will that be enough? Perhaps 50 more? When do you say "enough"?

But it's against international law to attack Iraq!

Iraq has violated the cease-fire conditions of the Gulf war. Therefore, it is invalid - and this can be considered the resumption of the Gulf War.
Any suggestions?
[/list=1]

Please, I want to hear a good reason, or a reason why one of the above is valid.

Philly Baby, you better post! :D

[idynkydnk]

yeah, I also don't get it

[zaybee_devil]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
But people will die!

But people will die!

An unfortunate "side effect" - terrible. Remember that Saddam kills people, too.


god! that's so callous! put urself in their shoes man! they don't need this...haven't they suffered enuff!?!

[Androsynth]

Zaybee, thankfully the Iraqi military is for the most part surrendering. The last thing anyone wants to see is for the US to go into Iraq causing as many casualties as possible... quite the opposite, we're affording them every chance for surrender, and they seem to be complying.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zaybee_devil
god! that's so callous! put urself in their shoes man! they don't need this...haven't they suffered enuff!?!
Another stupid argument - YES, the HAVE suffered enough. We are ending their suffering. I'm sorry, but a few people's unfortunate deaths is better than continued torture and death under a dictator.

[c2R]

Originally posted by Androsynth
Zaybee, thankfully the Iraqi military is for the most part surrendering. The last thing anyone wants to see is for the US to go into Iraq causing as many casualties as possible... quite the opposite, we're affording them every chance for surrender, and they seem to be complying.

Precisely :)

And they would do too - if we really wanted, we could destroy every living thing in Iraq at the touch of a button, without risking a single troop. Added to that, the US soldiers are much better equipped, and armed than any of the Iraqis, practically all of which (excepting perhaps the Republican Guard) don't really want to fight.

[KerelDude]

That's exactly what's so sick about this war. It's a giant war machine crushing a little dictator. I really can't understand why the Americans are so affraid of Iraq, they don't even have rockets that can reach Western Europe, how would they attack the USA?

And to name just one reason I'm opposed to this war is mainly the consequences of it. By throwing all that oil on the market oil-prices will plummet, causing major problems for arab countries and Russia, who's economy evolve around oil.

Also, the war has been started without UN backing which makes it illegal. The problem with this is, what would stop other big countries crushing their little problems? This is a big mistake of the USA in my eyes, other countries are already making advantage of this. As I am writing this Turkish troops are invading Nothern Iraq where the Kurds live.

And I think noone is saying Saddam is "an OK guy", he's a sick bastard. But USa simply do not have the proof he has mass destruction weapons, and Hans Blix reported the inspections were working. He even added that he needed just a few months to complete all of his work. Not years as was put here.

I hope for the Americans they can even find a few weapons of mass destruction to prove their point. I doubt it though.

[CremoNe]

may i ask another question?
what's wrong with Iraq itself?

if it's because it has mass-destroying weapons, in the hands of an instable person, as it is Saddam Hussein, i would agree the war.
but where are those weapons? why didn't they use them?

-and the USA, would they attack a nation that has such a terrible set of weapons?

-wouldn't there be a big loss in american soldiers and therefore in Bush's image with his population?
-if you answered yes, well the North Corea comes first, that's a pity they have a nuclear bomb...

[ertmann|CPH]

Legalisation of pre emptive strikes - The UN is not flawless by any standards, but it is the only forum that includes most of the worlds contries, hence a military action approved by the United Nations have a unique legitimazy that you can't get anywhere else.

Now the UK and US have showed the world that you do not need approval from the UN to make a preemtive strike if a country feels threatened. That can have grim consequences - look at India and Pakistan which serveral times have had massive stand off's with millions of troops massed along the border - how are you going to justify to them, that they can't make a strike when the US and UK can? remind you that those two countries posses nuclear weapons.

Igniting the region into violence - The region are very unstable as it is, people have very strong feelings against the United States - mostly because of it's Israel policy. The massive demonstrations going on in the middle east can get out of hand toppeling Western friendly goverments, and/or throwing the whole region into anarchy, something that is very likely to happen if civilian casualties mount.

The neighboring countries could go into the conflict when the war ends, supporting each of the 3 ethnic groups in Iraq, in their fight for who should have the power in a new goverment, thus creating a larger more massive conflict.

Iran might get nervous about having the United States controling Iraq, when they are on the list of 'the axis of evil' and quite reasonable think that they could be next, making them enter the conflict - fighting the United States.... and they have a fucking massive army i tell you.

Civilian casualites - if the special republican guard manages to draw US troops into street fighting in Bagdad, both civilian and military casualites are bound to be high, very high.

Also if the war escalates, the refugees will couse a humanitarian disaster as there arent nearly enough aid for them, in the country.

The spiliting of the west - If the western countries don't manage to find eachother again, when the conflict ends, we will have a situation much more damaging for world peace and economy than Iraq could ever cause.

more terrorist attacks - It's not unlikely that this war will increase the hatred of the west even more in fundamentalist groups.

[CremoNe]

Nice to hear from you , Stefan :)

[zaybee_devil]

Originally posted by KerelDude
It's a giant war machine crushing a little dictator. I really can't understand why the Americans are so affraid of Iraq, they don't even have rockets that can reach Western Europe, how would they attack the USA?

exactly...what about the koreans...they've got weapons far more destructive than Iraq...i guess bush knows that if they try to disarm korea by force then they will retaliate big time. he also knows that the iraqis can't put up much resistence..they don't have the power to do so...so there he goes attacking the little guy for a sure victory. the fucking wimp!

they dropped 1500 bombs and missiles on iraq in one nite! what the hell for man...its not like the iraqis are exactly fighting back.

don't get me wrong i've no love for saddam husain...the fucker should be castrated

[fwgx]

My token post. I've talked about this too many times now in these forums. Go back and read my posts if you're interested. I agree with what ertmann said above. There is not need for a war to get rid of Saddam.

[c2R]

Originally posted by KerelDude
And to name just one reason I'm opposed to this war is mainly the consequences of it. By throwing all that oil on the market oil-prices will plummet, causing major problems for arab countries and Russia, who's economy evolve around oil.

Good! At the moment oil prices are controlled by OPEC - a Cartel of the sort which is illegal inside contries themselves.

The Middle East is able to produce oil at rediculously low prices - about $2 per barrel. It is much more expensive in the rest of the world, as it doesn't just literally flow out of the desert - I think North Sea oil is nearer the $15 per barrel mark.

These countries keep the prices high, so the rich elite can live in a style that is akin to a monarch. Do you see the peasants of the Middle Eastern countries benefitting from their oil wealth. Um, er, erm... no.

If any country decides to step out of the OPEC line, and undercut them to produce cheaper oil (i.e. it acts competitively); OPEC is able to punish them by flooding the market with cheap oil, effectively bankrupting the smaller country.

Who's the bully now?

[KerelDude]

All true, but that's what competivity is all about. Oil is the only income they have so I completely understand the way they defend that income.
As for the elite-peasants comparison, I believe America has the same problem, a few Bill Gates' and a large poor population.

[c2R]

Originally posted by KerelDude
All true, but that's what competivity is all about.

I disagree - they're colluding in an anti-competitive manner....

[Merlin]

The people of Iraq want Saddam's regime removed from power - many Iraqis who have left the country have said so. The US is therefore doing them a favour.

We need to remove that regime from power because it poses a THREAT TO OTHER NATIONS. Not necessarily the US, as most of Iraq's firepower won't reach that far, but other surrounding countries. The US is doing them a favour, too. If you have a better idea for how to destroy the regime, let me know. Using a Sniper to kill the dictator is hard because Saddam is so elusive; but still, it has been tried.

[ertmann|CPH]

Who?

I Simply don't get it!

There are absolutely no country Saddam would be able to attack.

He can't attack any country within the arabic community couse, he needs it's support.

He can't attack any European country as it would trigger a full scale NATO engagement.

He can't attack Iran, cause their army at present, are alot stonger than his own.

The man is a lunatic, but not stupid - far from it, playing around with the international community for years and splitting even NATO should prove that beyond any doubt. And a man who's not stupid, dont orchastrate his own anahilation.

Yes he did attack Kuwait and Iran, but that was under very different circumstances, at that state he had something like the 5th strongest army in the world, and the army had a very good reputation. He doesn't have that anymore - so he can't use the fear factor any more.

[fwgx]

Attacking his beighbours. Well Iran has chemical, boilogical and is very close to nuclear weapons, this is a known fact. Israel has nuclear weapons, Europe has them, Pakistan and India have them. He is no threat to any of these countries or the smaller ones which will be defended if attacked.

[QH0BBES]

Iraqi War: Prez Bush doesn't like what Saddam is doing so he goes in and starts bombing and killing people.
Columbine: Some kids didn't like what some other kids were doing so they went in there and started killing them and almost blew them up.
And there was nothing wrong with Columbine was there?

[webthing]

He is no threat to any of these countries or the smaller ones which will be defended if attacked. - Phily Baby



Why wait to be attacked?

Why wait to be attacked with WMDs?

Take them out....... no more problem!


We americans love freedom. We Love to feel free, safe,secure.

Nobody tells me here what to do, how do live. I make my own life here how I choose.


Why don't you ask a Iraqi or Iranian your stupid questions?

Ask Them to post here.

Let them give there opinions?

Well they can't the internet is illegel there. You could be killed for doing what you are doing.

There are only one T.V. station, Radio station,one newspaper there. All goverment run.

Why don't you want these freedoms for the Iraqis.

The ones you take for granted and paid for with american blood.


Well, why don't you ask a Iraqi what they think?

[Gorgeus]

First and most important, I think war has to be justified, not the other way round. Second, please believe i take the arguments pro war into serious consideration. Please do the same for the war protestors.

Here are my reasons against this war, I try to follow your list of arguments:

1. I don't do the oil argument. I think this argument is wrong, and try to tell the demonstrators. But I do demonstrate because there are a lot good reasons left:

2. The U.S. totally failed in convincing me that there is danger coming from Iraq right now. The trade restrictions made sure that Iraq cannot do any larger rockets which could reach Europe, not to speak of the U.S. As I said before, ask any expert there is, with rockets with more than 1000 kilometers, at some point you have to start testing. Testing didn't happen, that would be easy to prove by surveillance satellits.

3. Sadddam is NOT an OK guy. I wonder how you come to the idea that those opposing this war have this oppinion. He should be removed, but war cannot be the way to achieve regime changes wherever you like. There are dictatorchips all around the world, why Iraq now ? The US supports dictators round the world, as long as they do what the US likes.

4. We don't have any idea on how many Iraq people died yet. Don't believe the war parties - neither Pentagon nor the Iraqi government. Charity organisations are estimating about 300.000, the UN thinks of 500.000. I have no idea on how this can be justified if there is no danger - see point 2

5. The UN weapons inspectotions did start to work - read the Blix report. He said that Iraq can be disarmed within about half a year. The US did not want to come to a peacefull solution. France, Germany and Russia did say that they can't agree on anything leading to war - that was what they believe in and that what they said - you can't expect other countris to act like you want - and if you don't like it, well, you do it alone.

6. The region might start to go into chaos. The feelings are anti-America there allready, mainly because they are proud of their countries, religion and people as well (patriotism is not restricted to America). How would you feel if a superpower would start to intervene in your region and replace goverments if they feel like it ? Exactly. Moderate leaders in the arabic world will have trouble to stay in office, radicals will get more support, the clash of cultures we have to avoid at any cost is happening. That's what I mean if I say the US is going into the trap made for them on September 11th.

7. You are a leader of an arabic country. You lead a proud and self confident nation. You see america attacking other countries at their will. What do you do ? Get weapons, nuclear if possible. Than the US have to talk to you, you can make demands (e.g. North Korea).

This is why i believe this war will not improve stability and security, neither in the US or anywhere else.

George

[Curi0us_George]

This is getting old. Every argument against attacking Saddam has already been addressed. Go re-read the other threads.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by KerelDude
That's exactly what's so sick about this war. It's a giant war machine crushing a little dictator. I really can't understand why the Americans are so affraid of Iraq, they don't even have rockets that can reach Western Europe, how would they attack the USA?

And to name just one reason I'm opposed to this war is mainly the consequences of it. By throwing all that oil on the market oil-prices will plummet, causing major problems for arab countries and Russia, who's economy evolve around oil.

Poor little evil dictator. Can't he have his fun torturing, killing, and building a few weapons? It's not like it hurts anybody!

Gee, I don't know how they would attack the US. I mean, it's not like they could put a bomb in a box, and put the box in a boat, and then send the boat somewhere! Oh, wait...

Ah, the consequences. It'll be inconvient for countries, because Iraq now can sell oil. Aww. That's terrible. Remember, no one should compete with anyone else!

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by QH0BBES
Iraqi War: Prez Bush doesn't like what Saddam is doing so he goes in and starts bombing and killing people.
Columbine: Some kids didn't like what some other kids were doing so they went in there and started killing them and almost blew them up.
And there was nothing wrong with Columbine was there?

This analogy is so terrible that I don't know where to begin.

[c2R]

Originally posted by QH0BBES
Iraqi War: Prez Bush doesn't like what Saddam is doing so he goes in and starts bombing and killing people.
Columbine: Some kids didn't like what some other kids were doing so they went in there and started killing them and almost blew them up.
And there was nothing wrong with Columbine was there?


haha, yeah right.

As I've said, if the intention of the allied forces was to kill people, a simple daisy cutter dropped on Baghdad, or a few nukes would deal with most of the population, without risk to allied personnel. As it is, this war is being conducted to try and minimize loss to civilian life.

[The Valkyrie]

War is never waged with one reason. Bush & co. has many reasons to wage war, and yes at least some ARE about the oil. The protesters are right AND wrong - Bush & co. do not neccessary want the oil for themselves:

Bush & co. knows the Arabs are in possession of the most powerful substance in the economic world - oil - which is why Britain then America spent decades weakening the Arabs so they can't gang up and trash oil prices for global political influence. First with Israel, then Gulf War 2 (1991 was the SECOND Gulf War), and now this.

Saudi Arabia is undoubtedly the world's biggest oil cranker. Even though Russia produces the stuff on par with the Saudis, the Saudis have 87 years of Oil reserves left, Russia has 10 at most. One Saudi derrick produces as much oil as 60 Texan derricks.

Now the thing is, Oil is a single, unified market spanning the globe. If oil prices change in one country, the whole world change, that's why even though America gets less than 20% of its oil from the Middle East, it does everything in its power to protect it, because low or high oil prices hurt the US economy, and therefore world economy.

Speaking of which, OPEC has said that IF the war drags on for too long, oil prices will shoot past $60, causing world economic crisis. Right now everyone are optimistically hoping that the war will end quickly, so oil prices are dropping and stock markets are rallying like mad. But if the war takes longer than around two weeks, people will start to get very shaky with economic activities.

Now if the recent Oil Dump mean anything, it means the Saudis are getting worryingly strong and influential. Iraqi Oil will solve this problem by lessening the world's reliance on Saudi oil, giving Bush & co. the upper hand. Bush can then apply political pressure on the Saudis without fear of retaliation, maybe to smoke out terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia, maybe just keep those sheiks putty in Bush's hand. That's why the Saudis are zealously against this war - they know it will hurt their influence on world economy.

[zootm]

i'm anti-war because i don't believe that this is the time, and i believe that i'm being lied to. and i won't let those who lie to us wage a war in my name.

i am still pretty close to sitting on the fence, however.

[webthing]

I swear to God Zootm I'm not lying to you.

Either is my Nation.

It was time WAR.

We so believe in what we are doing, we are willing to fight and die for it.

So get ye off that fence...... down on the side of Truth, Justus, and the American Way.



Not on the side of Evil People. Me Not Evil. :D

[dlinkwit27]

the oil debate: more oil = good for all concerned. The influx of all this CHEAP oil will allow for a massive economic boot worldwide. Oil is partly why things cost so much to begin with. Let's look at your average everyday farm for example. I live in Illinois, so i will use a corn farm. What does teh farmer use to raise and harvest his crops? Tractors. tractors run on (duh) gasoline. So in order to even harvest his crop, he must spend a lot of money on fuel for his tractro. Ok, he harvests his crops, now he sells them to a big company. How does that company move the crops from the farm to the processsing plant? Hose and carraige? no. Truck, boats, planes, which all use MASSIVE amounts of fuel. Again, more money for oil. Now at the plan, what runs the processing machines? more oil. And how do you get it to the stores? more trucsk, boats, planes, which use more oil. As you can see, oil is in invloved in almost every part of the economy and every part of every product. By allowing the oil prices to drop, the persons involved in all the steps of the economy won't have to spend so much, making prices drop in each part of the process, makeing the end pice, wahat you, the consumer pays, cheaper.

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
I swear to God Zootm I'm not lying to you.

Either is my Nation.
but that's what you would say.

Originally posted by webthing
It was time WAR.
that doesn't make any sense...

Originally posted by webthing
We so believe in what we are doing, we are willing to fight and die for it.
no, you're willing to send people to fight and die for it. not all of them believe in the war movement. reports i've read say a lot of them don't.

Originally posted by webthing
So get ye off that fence...... down on the side of Truth, Justus, and the American Way.
are they not mutually exclusive? :D seriously though, it's self-righteousness like this that makes some debates worthless. people who will always support "the american way", because they automatically assume it to be right. i'm not saying it's always wrong, but it's definately not always right.

and dlinkwit27, i'd be interested to know just how much money i'm saving, as the average consumer. if you could tell me how many people had to die for each penny i save, that would save me a short calculation, too...

[dlinkwit27]

it depeneds on how much oil we let into the economy, but you must admit, the theory makes sence. It is just, logic.

[zootm]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
it depeneds on how much oil we let into the economy, but you must admit, the theory makes sence. It is just, logic.
there's some truth in that. it's all about how highly you value human life, and things like that.

still, i was cracked up on bbc news 24 a couple of weeks ago (pre-war) when they had a financial analyst on, who said "you know, people are all saying 'don't go to war, it's all about the oil'... but you know what? i think oil's a pretty good thing to go to war over!"

the camera cut to the main anchorman-style guy at that point.

[webthing]

no, you're willing to send people to fight and die for it.- zootm

I would die for my country. B I Itch

but that's what you would say -zootm

but that's what you would say
but that's what you would say :D


It was time to goto war to disarm Saddam - webthing

reports i've read say a lot of them don't. - zootm

Dead wrong. How many 2?

i'm not saying it's always wrong, but it's definately not always right.

I'm not saying it's always right, but most of the time it is.:D

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
Dead wrong. How many 2?
the report i read was in some copy of some silly magazine ("time" i think) that i was reading in a chinese restaurant, a while back. i think it was about 10-20%. whether that's changed by now is another matter...

Originally posted by webthing
I would die for my country. B I Itch
yes, but you said "we", referring to the american people, not yourself, surely...

[webthing]

"We" = True Americans

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
"We" = True Americans
uh... mebbebutahthinknolaud...

so i suppose anyone who thinks for themselves, and doesn't reach this conclusion, isn't a true american? do all "true americans" have as flawed logic as you seem to be exhibiting? are they all so stubborn and arrogant?

are true americans the reason that so many people hate the US?

[webthing]

uh... mebbebutahthinknolaud...
that doesn't make any sense...
so i suppose anyone who thinks for themselves, and doesn't reach this conclusion, isn't a true american?
Yes
do all "true americans" have as flawed logic as you seem to be exhibiting?
Yes, it's call Patriotism. Something you would'nt understand. Dying for something bigger, than just saving your own ass.

are true americans the reason that so many people hate the US?
Yes.

I believe in the THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Did you read the part "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
so i suppose anyone who thinks for themselves, and doesn't reach this conclusion, isn't a true american?
Yes
oh, i see! you're against freedom of speech!

Originally posted by webthing
do all "true americans" have as flawed logic as you seem to be exhibiting?Yes, it's call Patriotism. Something you would'nt understand.
wow. doublethink. this is cool. you're a supporter of fascism :up:

Originally posted by webthing
Did you read the part "provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"
i haven't actually read it, up until now. being british, i saw no need. surely the "blessings of liberty" include being able to disagree with the government? surely expressing your opinion against the government shows the prevalence of these blessings, and makes the people who do every bit as "true" an american as you?

[webthing]

oh, i see! you're against freedom of speech!
No just hate speech about my country.
Read our Bill of Rights (http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html)

wow. doublethink. this is cool. you're a supporter of fascism
No not even close.

surely the "blessings of liberty" include being able to disagree with the government?
Yes, Don't put words in my mouth, or over think this. You know what I mean. Read our Bill of Rights (http://memory.loc.gov/const/bor.html)


I'm just a reguler joe,mate,blok,guy sticking up for my country.
You should do the same. Hell I'm more for your goverment then you.
I want world peace. But sometimes there is a price for peace.

I don't have much more time for this.

"WE" know what side of the fence you'er on.

WE = The people who LOVE The United States of America


THE TRUE AMERICANS

A VIETNAM VETERAN'S POEM

BY SIMON PETERSON




We wore the badge of the Navy Seal
or the proud beret of Green

Or the shining wings of the Aviator

or the crest of the Marine


It mattered not what branch we served
nor what they called us by name

For the job we had come to do

was one in all the same


From high school and from college

from sweethearts at the prom

We all had come as brothers
To a place called VIETNAM


Although we were so different

one thing was common to all

The idea that liberty and freedom

must never be allowed to fall

So we faced the death and horror

until we couldnt stand the pain

Then we stood up tall and faced it

a thousand times again

Oh, at times we grew weary

and our minds would start to doubt

But seeing the children's faces we knew

exactly what it was all about

So, in places unknown in American homes

we chose to live and fight and die

Places with names so foreign

like Bien Hoa, Da Nang, Quang Tri


But we did not know that freedom's greatest foe

was not the enemy we faced
but a faction back in America

composed of cowardice and disgrace

The media called us monsters

the protestors did the same

They made us out to be Savages

who would torture, kill, and maim

And in the end, they sold out a nation

and the men who for them served

For the sake of sniveling protestors

masquerading their lack of nerve

So, a little nation in Asia died

like all too many others

And in shame they brought us home again

less thousands of our brothers

Our civilian jobs had gone to the cowardly lot

they treated us like dirt

America inflicted upon it's proud sons

an everlasting hurt

But forever shall I be proud that I served

and that I didn't run away

Because unlike all those others

I'm still a Man today

And i'll never forget those tiny almond eyes

and children's lips that pout

For you see, WE ARE THE TRUE AMERICANS

WE STILL KNOW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT


THE TRUE AMERICANS (http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/savage/The%20true%20Americans.htm)

[QH0BBES]

I would die for my country. B I otch
Good, would you mine doing so? One less Republican. I'll die for peace, but never for my country that threatens it.

[zootm]

hmm. interesting poem. i'm not, however, criticising our soldiers - on the contrary, they're brave, loyal people. the motives of an attack, the suppression of arguments against war, these are the sort of things people are protesting. once again, these people are NOT against the USA. these people are NOT supporting the powers in iraq. these people are opposing war. they don't want it - it's that simple. does that mean that they support the enemy? because if it does, it means the US govt. supported saddam in the last war (by not deposing him - by "sitting by" when the opportunity arose). don't think these people are any less patriotic than you. when you think your friend is making a mistake, or doing something wrong, do you tell him, or do you agree with him, on principle, and hence letting him go through with the action you oppose? which one of those would you rather your friends did? i like to think that the majority of people who marched against war were not trying to oppose their country, but to point out what they felt was a grave error on the government's part.

the true americans are not the ones who blindly follow their government. the true americans would at least take a look at the issues first. i assume, of course, that if france wanted to declare war on iraq, and if the US opposed it, you'd support the US in that too? even if all the conditions were the same, but reversed?

[webthing]

Good, would you mine doing so? -QH0BBES
With Pleasure.

I'll die for peace, but never for my country that threatens it. - QHOBBES

Good then you suppout this war.

. i assume, of course, that if france wanted to declare war on iraq, and if the US opposed it, you'd support the US in that too? even if all the conditions were the same, but reversed?
:hang: Ouch that hurts my head. ah yes......ah no......ah I don't know?......ahhhggg:cry:

i'm anti-war because i don't believe that this is the time, and i believe that i'm being lied to. and i won't let those who lie to us wage a war in my name. - zootm


1. When would it have been time? 12 more years? 30 days? 48 more hours. It would still have been the same outcome. WAR.

2. Who lied to you?

3. What would you have done with Iraq?

4. Do you like Hotdogs,apple pie,and babes?

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
1. When would it have been time? 12 more years? 30 days? 48 more hours. It would still have been the same outcome. WAR.

2. Who lied to you?

3. What would you have done with Iraq?

4. Do you like Hotdogs,apple pie,and babes?
1. maybe, but i don't believe that this is the time for that war. not much to do about it now, though - pulling out would create more problems...

2. the us govt., various media sources... even likening this to a "war on terrorism" is a lie...

3. i don't know. i'd have supported what i saw as the most sensible suggestions from people who knew what they were talking about. that's not you, by the way.

4. hotdogs = german, renamed from frankfurters because of a previous war (does this sound familiar? ;))

apple pie... nah...

and babes... well... i'm afraid that babes ain't all american either. and they don't have a higher percentage, either. :p

[webthing]

4. hotdogs = german, renamed from frankfurters because of a previous war (does this sound familiar? )- zootm

Not true

A little history

Although the history of sausage goes back a long way, hot dogs are as American as apple pie. There's no sure etiology of the term hot dog, but two theories are the most prominent.

The popularity of the term hot dog is generally attributed to sports cartoonist T. A. "Tad" Dorgan, who caricatured German figures as dachshund dogs just after the turn of the 19th century. His talking sausage cartoons generally denigrated the cheap wieners sold at Coney Island, crassly suggesting they contained dogmeat. It was such bad publicity that in 1913, the Chamber of Commerce actually banned use of the term "hog dog" from signs on Coney Island. The term actually first appeared in print in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1900.

German Americans brought us weinerwurst, German for Vienna sausage, which eventually shortened to wiener. Other German immigrants referred to smoked sausages as bundewurst, German for dog sausage. By the late 1920's, weinie roasts became the rage, with guests bringing their own hot dogs to roast over an open fire.

Credit for putting the hot dog into a warm bun and topping it with various condiments goes to Harry Magely, catering director of New York City's Polo Grounds, who reportedly instructed his vendors to cry out, "Red hots! Get your red hots!" Also credited for the idea of warm buns is Charles Feltman, of Feltman's Gardens in Coney Island amusement park. Corn dogs were introduced in 1942 at the Texas State Fair.:p

hotdogs = German Americans

[webthing]

Originally posted by webthing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. When would it have been time? 12 more years? 30 days? 48 more hours. It would still have been the same outcome. WAR.

2. Who lied to you?

3. What would you have done with Iraq?

4. Do you like Hotdogs,apple pie,and babes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------


1. I would have liked to see 30 more days, to try to get more support.

2. various media sources. True.
the US govt. It's not all lies.
It is a war on terror. Your not an Iraqi how would you know?

3. I would have went all the way to Bagdad in '91

4. Babes.True I love them all too.:D

[fwgx]

>>>3. What would you have done with Iraq?

Easy answer. If the world was not run by neo republicans and the far right we wouldn't be in this situation to start with :p.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by webthing
hot dogs are as American as apple pie
Well, Apple Pie is actually a Hungarian dish, I believe. :D

[webthing]

>>>3. What would you have done with Iraq?

Easy answer. If the world was not run by neo republicans and the far right we wouldn't be in this situation to start with .




That not an answer.:rolleyes:

We would'nt be in this situation if were not for Evil People a.k.a Insane Saddam Hussein. :blah:

[webthing]

Well, Apple Pie is actually a Hungarian dish, I believe.

Apple Pie = Hungarian American :D

[MyTeeMouse]

As an American I would like to say this. I know Bush has personal motives for this war campaign, and I don't really like that. I also know that Sadam is an evil bastard that deserves whatever fate throws at him. The press isn't helping. The world hates us because we're arrogant. War is, in my opinion, always for the wrong reasons (greed).

However, my gut tells me this guy (Sadam) needs to be taken out now. If I see a guy down the street waving a gun at his neighbors, I'm not going to wait for him to pull the trigger before I take him down. Yes, Bush is an idiot. I didn't vote for him. However, as an American, I'll stand by my country in time of war and deal with the morons afterwards.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by MyTeeMouse
However, my gut tells me this guy (Sadam) needs to be taken out now. If I see a guy down the street waving a gun at his neighbors, I'm not going to wait for him to pull the trigger before I take him down.

i like your analogy. :) well said :up:

[xzxzzx]

I am going to address every (not completely idiotic) argument posted in this thread.

[list=10]
Originally posted by zootm
likening this to a "war on terrorism" is a lie...
Depends who's terror. No one can prove Saddam is funding "terrorists". He's a terrorist to his own country, though.


You're supporting the other side, if you don't support war! (If you're not with us, you're against us)
This is only slightly less stupid than enough to exclude from this list.

But.. the oil! (again)

Drop it. Just drop it. This will lower oil prices, which will have all kinds of effects, but the war can stand on it's own points.

Originally posted by
But USa simply do not have the proof he has mass destruction weapons, and Hans Blix reported the inspections were working. He even added that he needed just a few months to complete all of his work. Not years as was put here.

That's amazing! I wonder why Iraq suddenly *appeared* to be cooperating? I mean, what else changed?


But Iraq couldn't attack the US - it's missiles couldn't go far enough!
A box in a boat works just as well as a missile.


But this will piss off the neighboring countries
Finally, a sound argument. This is definitely not good. I don't really know enough about the relations over there to say much on it - however, this is another price to pay.
[/list=10]

Um... I kind of thought there would be more. Too bad. I really wanted to be convinced there was a valid reason for NOT going to war.

If your argument was not in this list, it is either too stupid, or I am too tired, and missed it. In either case, feel free to post it again.

[zootm]

Originally posted by webthing
hotdogs = German Americans
as opposed to "true" americans? :blah:

i really have gotten tired of arguing about this war, pretty soon i'm gonna lower myself to the level of picking out grammatical and spelling errors... :(

[KerelDude]

That's amazing! I wonder why Iraq suddenly *appeared* to be cooperating? I mean, what else changed?

We all know a military build up was necessary for Iraq to cooperate. That doesn't take away that inspections were working and it certainly doesn't justify a war.

[fwgx]

Or that inspections worked before with out an army on their doorstep.

[Gorgeus]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
I am going to address every (not completely idiotic) argument posted in this thread.

[list=10]
Depends who's terror. No one can prove Saddam is funding "terrorists". He's a terrorist to his own country, though.

This is only slightly less stupid than enough to exclude from this list.


Drop it. Just drop it. This will lower oil prices, which will have all kinds of effects, but the war can stand on it's own points.


That's amazing! I wonder why Iraq suddenly *appeared* to be cooperating? I mean, what else changed?

A box in a boat works just as well as a missile.

Finally, a sound argument. This is definitely not good. I don't really know enough about the relations over there to say much on it - however, this is another price to pay.
[/list=10]

Um... I kind of thought there would be more. Too bad. I really wanted to be convinced there was a valid reason for NOT going to war.

If your argument was not in this list, it is either too stupid, or I am too tired, and missed it. In either case, feel free to post it again.

Well, calling arguments stupid is not a good base for discussion. Did you read my post ? I am not the only one with these arguments, or do you call thousands of protestors around the world that way. (Not to mention intelectuals, professors etc.) So calling these points stupid is definitely too easy and not good enough if you on your side are out to convince anyone.

George

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Gorgeus
Well, calling arguments stupid is not a good base for discussion. Did you read my post ? I am not the only one with these arguments, or do you call thousands of protestors around the world that way. (Not to mention intelectuals, professors etc.) So calling these points stupid is definitely too easy and not good enough if you on your side are out to convince anyone.

Hmmm.. I missed your post. As I said, it was either too stupid, or I missed it. I did not specifically state that any argument is stupid (except for a pro-war argument), so your argument that I am somehow disagreeing with "intelectuals (sic), professors etc.".

Let me sum this up:

I called no arguments stupid.
Notice the following:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
If your argument was not in this list, it is either too stupid, or I am too tired, and missed it. In either case, feel free to post it again.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
Or that inspections worked before with out an army on their doorstep.
Actually, um, it decidedly does. If they are now cooperating because of a military buildup, then logically, it follows that they weren't before.

You can't turn on a light that's already on.

[zootm]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
You can't turn on a light that's already on.
sure you can. fucks the bulb though. you know, maybe i just wired that wrong...

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by KerelDude
We all know a military build up was necessary for Iraq to cooperate. That doesn't take away that inspections were working and it certainly doesn't justify a war.

Hmm.. Best argument yet. But I am pretty convinced that inspections were not working.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
sure you can. fucks the bulb though. you know, maybe i just wired that wrong...
True - but turning it on again doesn't change it's state - if it did, then it must have been off before. :p

Note to self:

If electrician’s license plate is "zootm", find another electrician.

Second note to self:
Always spell check posts if zootm is posting about something he's bored of posting about.

[fwgx]

You'd have thought it natural for a country to be suspicious of inspectors, who's predecesors were infultrated by the CIA. Millitary build up probably helped but that's not to say the inspections weren't working and could have done their job properly and effectivly with NO loss of life, war etc.

[zootm]

it would make it brighter, if the bulb could take it. it would become "very on" :D

as for the weapons inspectors thing, yes, it is a relevant argument, and too many people assume that they weren't working, without even a cursory glance at the issue. if you're going to go and say you don't think they were working, and you've looked at the progress and whatnot (even just a few newssources would do), then that's fair enough. i'm just worried about those people who don't - who just blindly accept they weren't working because donald rumsfeld said so.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
it would make it brighter, if the bulb could take it. it would become "very on" :D

as for the weapons inspectors thing, yes, it is a relevant argument, and too many people assume that they weren't working, without even a cursory glance at the issue. if you're going to go and say you don't think they were working, and you've looked at the progress and whatnot (even just a few newssources would do), then that's fair enough. i'm just worried about those people who don't - who just blindly accept they weren't working because donald rumsfeld said so.

Logically, electrically, and mathematically, that is wrong.

If the bulb is already on, further "on"ness would not change it's state.
Electrically, there would be the same voltage, so it wouldn't make a difference.
(bulb = on) == (bulb = on = on) // I don't know how to express that mathematically, so I'll use C++ code

As far as the weapons inspectors, while I don't like the fact that some people blindly accept things coming out of the government's collective mouth, I do not think that weapons inspectors were working. You see, it was not the weapons inspector's primary job to go and find weapons and destroy them - it was thier job to confirm that the weapons were destroyed. Iraq has lied, again, and again, and again. Read the inspector's reports over the last 10 years, and you'll see that.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
You'd have thought it natural for a country to be suspicious of inspectors, who's predecesors were infultrated by the CIA. Millitary build up probably helped but that's not to say the inspections weren't working and could have done their job properly and effectivly with NO loss of life, war etc.

Oh well. We'll never know now, will we?

[fwgx]

>>>>it was thier job to confirm that the weapons were destroyed

By destroying them themselves as they had done previously.

I haven't really read the lightbulb theory, but from the looks of it your logic is based on binary logic and not analogue? :igor:

[zootm]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
Logically, electrically, and mathematically, that is wrong.

If the bulb is already on, further "on"ness would not change it's state.
Electrically, there would be the same voltage, so it wouldn't make a difference.
(bulb = on) == (bulb = on = on) // I don't know how to express that mathematically, so I'll use C++ code

As far as the weapons inspectors, while I don't like the fact that some people blindly accept things coming out of the government's collective mouth, I do not think that weapons inspectors were working. You see, it was not the weapons inspector's primary job to go and find weapons and destroy them - it was thier job to confirm that the weapons were destroyed. Iraq has lied, again, and again, and again. Read the inspector's reports over the last 10 years, and you'll see that.
re: your light bulb thing
electrically: i don't think you understand the sort of wiring we're talking about here. :D
logically and mathematically (talk about redundancy! they're the same thing in this context) - you assume that "turn on" means a change in state... that's up to interpretation. also, if we're introducing degrees of "on" then a fuzzy logic system is needed. also, i know how to express what you were trying to say, but there isn't keys on my keyboard to do it :D i was just trying to lighten the mood anyway.

re: your view on inspectors
fair enough, it's your right to have that opinion.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by zootm
re: your light bulb thing
electrically: i don't think you understand the sort of wiring we're talking about here. :D
logically and mathematically (talk about redundancy! they're the same thing in this context) - you assume that "turn on" means a change in state... that's up to interpretation. also, if we're introducing degrees of "on" then a fuzzy logic system is needed. also, i know how to express what you were trying to say, but there isn't keys on my keyboard to do it :D i was just trying to lighten the mood anyway.

We should start another thread on the light bulb theory.

However, you cannot "turn on" a light bulb that is already on. Once it is "turned on", then it has already reached the state of "on". If you increase the brightness, then it is "on" to the exact same degree. While it is true that two value logic never totally correct, if it is correct enough to never be wrong (over the time that it matters), then it works. As far as electrically, I apparently don't understand the wiring - with my primitive electrical knowledge, it doesn't seem to me that you could induce a higher voltage in the bulb without accessing a higher voltage source, or using a transformer.

"Turn", by definition, must involve change of state. The state we are referring to is "on" - which is already been accomplished. The only possible question is if something can get "more on".

Here's another analogy, which won't be nearly as much fun to debate:

You cannot move TO a point, if you are already AT the point, and the point does not move.

[zootm]

things like this are debated by logicians all day, every day. those people scare me. i think we've successfully derailed this thread something silly, though.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
>>>>it was thier job to confirm that the weapons were destroyed

By destroying them themselves as they had done previously.

I haven't really read the lightbulb theory, but from the looks of it your logic is based on binary logic and not analogue? :igor:

Your grammar in that first sentence is questionable. (in other words: wtf?)

(The sentence, if you follow strict grammatical rules (which can't perfectly apply here), says that the weapons inspectors destroyed themselves in the past)

Actually, it is two-value logic; I assert that the state of "on" is part of a two-value idea, just as "starting to cooperate" would be part of a two-value idea.

On another note, I fully agree that infinite-value logic is normally more correct.

[zootm]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
(The sentence, if you follow strict grammatical rules (which can't perfectly apply here), says that the weapons inspectors destroyed themselves in the past)
"them" refers to the objects in question - the weapons.
"themselves" refers to the inspectors (this is fairly obvious intuitively)
the rest is unambiguous, and means exactly what he meant to say.

[xzxzzx]

Intresting. Ok, if that is the meaning, then NO. They were there to make sure that Iraq did indeed destroy the weapons. Because of how untrustworthy Iraq behaved, they couldn't do that, and now had to start searching for them themselves.