Redwall: Warlords

 Does anyone have any opinions on my country going to war?  I know Britian is supporting.  BTW HAPPY PAT'S DAY EVERYONE.   If your old enough to enjoy it.....

 Irakies should die!

 Dead Eye, though I support war full-heartedly, I believe that anyone who cannot spell Iraq should not be entitled to an opinion on the matter.

 I on the other hand do not support this war with Iraq.  Sure they've managed to build weapons, but we still have more than what they do and they're no threat to us.  If they were to have attacked us, that would be different, then I would support the war.
I feel that this war is going to be one that could possibly lead to many others in the future.  I'm an American, but I'm able to see that America has put a lot of countries around the world under America's juristiction, which I find makes it hard to run anything the way it should be ran in the eyes of the religion, and in the eyes of the government of these countries that are basically under the the control of the United States of America.

 With the weapons issue - We only care that they have these weapons because they do not keep good tabs on them and tend to sell them to terrorist organizations...

I just want you people to remember that in the Gulf War, one division of our army traveled 106 miles in 100 hours and captured 11,000 Iraqi troops while losing less than five of their own. This was the ground war, and this is to dispell any further argument of U.S. life from a ground war. (Has nothing to do with Scarwake's answer)

 Why can't Iraq have nuclear weapons?  I think the U.S. has atom bombs which are basically weapons of mass destruction.  So why can't iraq have them?  Maybe they are just going to use them for defense.

 Scarwake, you idiot. I don't believe that we should sit around waiting for them to attack us first. What if they attack your town next? You won't have any time to feel stupid about it.

 You don't deserve an opinion for saying that. Oh god, I did NOT just read that. You deserve to be deported, you cynical doot. This is one topic I am GOING to swear on because you are basically saying "Let's donate nuclear missiles to the insane asylum! Then we can let them spin a globe that is really just a big map of America, let them put their finger down, and see what they're going to Nuke first!" Jesus, what don't you people all understand about the fact that that country is led by an insane man, and he will kill all of us if he HAD weapons to do so, which he does not. If he did, however, I would hope that you were just outside the blast radius so you can get leukemia or some other radiation orientated disease and DIE.

(DIRECTED AT VAN, THIS WHOLE POST)

((Razorclaw couldn't claim you, he's still between newb and oldbie.))

 My father is in the army. He's not a fighter. He works with food. Making sure there is enough to feed the troops and that there are no chemicals or pathogens in it. Right now he is in Bahrain (if you don't know where it is, look it up). He has been since last June, and he won't be coming home until the end of this June. He could very well be killed if there is a war in Iraq however long it is.  Nevertheless, I support going to war with Iraq and so does my father. The U.S. may have more weapons than Saddam, but that doesn't mean anything. Why wait until he launches a missile right at our country? Do hundreds of thousands of people have to die before we do something about this maniacal man? Thousands of his own people have already died because of his insanity. Do thousands of Americans need to die too?

 Teufel - He does not have anything that could reach our country. If he did, he'd have used it as a bargaining chip LONG before now!

EVERYONE HAD BETTER WATCH THE BUSH ADDRESS TONIGHT ON ABC, (For USA) IT WILL BE THE FINAL DECISION! IT SHOULD BE ON BBC IN THE UK!

 I am just going to quote myself from Terrouge to what I said, cause I don't really feel like typing all that out again. ;)

Also, you have completely not listen to the facts. Over 100 000 people will die per years from bad health care and lack of food, and to that figure you must add in the people he kills. He chops off there heads for small crimes or rapes them, if they are even crimes.

Listen. I and others can tell you what will happen or what the high chances of what will happen, but that is all theory. Okay then. But, you can't ignore the figures and the facts.

Since around 1991, Saddam has let 1 000 000 people die, of hungry,health ect. That is a fact.

Saddam has violented EVERY UN resolution are rules or conditions that they sent to him. Everyone. That is a fact.

He has used chemical weapons aganist his-own-people. He has used chemical weapons against Iran in the 80s. That is a fact.

He has lied and misled UN inspecters and delayed them while they were searching for weapons. That is a fact.

He has told UN inspecters they can not go in certain places, like Palaces for example to search for weapons. That is a fact.

Here is a very key fact. in resolution 1441, ALL 15 countires in the security council agreed, signed, ect. to this resolution. That resolution states, like I and Kenny said before, that since November 4th, 2002, the UN had giving Saddam conditions and rules, checkpoints he had to follow. This resoultion is just a summary of all the resolutions since 1991. It states that if Saddam does not comply with the rules and follow them, then force or heavy actions are aloud. All of the 15 countires in the security council agreed to this, even France.

So, Saddam time has run out. The US has tried all measures to get Saddam to comply peacefully. He has not complied with the rules. Now the time is up. And, that resolution states when the time is up, the US and allies may take Saddam out with force.

Thos are facts that are real. We can debate what happens after this war, or what will happen during the war, or what will happen if this war doesn't happen, but you can't push out the facts that are staring you in the face, but cleary, all antiwarists are.

Also, to answer your question Van. The US does have nucular weapons. They are part of a good of nations, including Russia, France, Germany, ect.. that they are aloud to hold nucular weapons, and are only allowed to use them with FULL UN agreement, or in a time of a huge crisis, a lot bigger than the one at hand now.

Iraq on the other hand is not allowed to have these weapons because the world has said they are not aload. The world feels that Iraq would use it for the offense, rather than the defense. We have seen Saddam use chemical weapons agianst Iran in the 80s and against his won people. Why would he do the same with nucular weapons? Also, Saddam has served jail time in Siberia, for opposing the government and getting into a lot of trouble. He escaped from jail am went back to Iraq. This was some years ago, but thw worls still has this in mind.

The US is the only country to have used nucular weapons in history. That was a time when it was needed, even though many people do not support it. Anyway, the Nations that are aload to hold these weapons are constantly under watch, and the UN keeps track of all these major missles and where they are located in. It is just amazing that you could think that Saddam would be peaceful with these weapons. He would never be issued to have these in his possion. Not in a million years.

Heh. Dead Eye. You better learn how to spell better, cause that is just sad. "Irakies" is just a horrid spelling. Heh. Sounds like a second grader. No offense, but you better review your atlas or something like that.

*Goes off muttering*

 Also, Kilk, Saddam did have weapons that were reported to be able to it close to the shoreline. It was not confirmed that these statements were true, but some of the weapons that were inquestion, were destroyed. Though the report afterword was pretty interesting. They said Saddam would be able to reach us easily within a few years.

Also, another fact just to put in. You know how chemical weapons are Weapons of Mass Disruction? Well, it has not been confirmed yet, but some UN members have stated that Saddam has been handing out some chemical weapons to his "Elite" guard. Anyway, the point I am making is that, Saddam does have these weapons, and, he may use them. In this case, the US and allies would be right all along, that he still has possion of these weapons. It will be interesting if this report can be confirmed because, Saddam would be in a deep dark whole, caught in the act.

 I never said he has a missile right now that he could launch at the U.S., but rather I implied that if we do nothing about Saddam, he will acquire a long range missile, which he would then launch at the U.S.

 As of now, though, we have forces all 'round Iraq and we're watching that country every second of the day. If they launched this missile, it'd be a pretty big thing, and we'd see it. We would let this missile travel over a large body of water, then we'd unleash happy Mr. Patriot Missile on it, and it would go down. These anti-missile things are real, and they work, we shot down SCUDs in the gulf war like nothin', so why can't we shoot down something that would be MUCH bigger and we'd have much more time to react?

 Bush wants war.  He wanted war from day one.  Weapons has nothing to do with it at this point.  He will give Saddam one week to leave or face the US weapon.  The United States is the most powerfull nation in the world by far.  A history teacher in my University compared the United States today to Greece, but said we have become more powerfull with more influence than any nation that EVER was.  This is true.  But i believe we are overstretching our hand.  As for Saddam.  He is not the greatest guy in the world.  And the world would be a better place without him and his regime.  But are we the ones to place or rather displace him?  Also Saddam has said he will stand the last stand with his country and he will not give up.  

This is just what Bush wants.  A war and a Dictor to bring war.  Bush knows Saddam will not step down, and Saddam does not intend to.  And waddah we have?  A good ole fashion war.....except not.  We will see if he steps down.  I doubt it.  But anything is possible....

 Listen. A nucular weapon is different. You can't just "shoot it down". We did shoot down a lot of scud missles, but a fair amount did get through into Israel.

Now, back to the nucular weapons. They are fast, huge and right on target. By "hitting it out of the sky", they would be a huge risk to many countires surrounding the US, and countires even in Europe.

If you try and shoot it down right after it is lanched, you are in massive trouble. The explosion from the surface to air missles and the nucular warhead, would be massive. If it was hit over any country, than those countries would feel radiation and even explosions of debris could cause a lot of trouble. The radition on these pieces falling would cause a ton of trouble.

Now, if were to try and hit it over the Atlantic or Pacific for example, you also face problems. The surface to air missles are number one, out of range basically untill it reaches a certain distance, untill so many miles off shore.

Also, if it was hit out of the air, it would be relatively close to shore. Now, the huge waves and radition caused by this would be massive, and even if there are floods, it would be nothing to the radition in th air and so forth.

This is of corse if it could even make contact with the nucular missle. They are very different than the scuds and they travel at different speeds and different heights. Hitting a missles in the ocean is very unlikely. Very unlikely. Almost impossible, like the US has reported. You also cannot launch a missle of the same size at it because, well hitting its target is extreamly hard, and very unlikely. Not that the US wouldn't try and hit it down, but actually doing this would be something to see.

The only thing you can really do in this situation that would work is fire nucular weapons back to where they came from, and hopefully pray Saddam's missile is a fluke and doesn't work. The result in all this is nucular war and desruction of the world.

So, we must go in and stop Saddam, before it is too late and we can do nothing.

 Bloodrath.  Nukes usually don't arm themselves until they reach their target.  This is not the movies where we shoot down a nuke in space and you see a huge explosion.  We ( USA ) are in the process of building anti nuke system.  But as far as i know most nukes do not arm until they reach their designated target.

 I know this is not the movies. I am not stupid. Listen. Most nukes do not arm themselves untill the reach a certain distance to there target, yes I agree. However, there are nucular warheads that arm themselves while on the ground, and those are the highly dangerous ones right away.

Also, if Saddam fires a nucular weapon that does not arm itself untill it is near to the US, it is still a huge problem. We are building a anti nucular system, but it is not completed yet, or even tested heavily. There is no strength in that we will hit these weapons out of the air, or anything like that.

The point is that the US does not a have a solid solution to destroy nucular weapons onced launched. If it is launched, this will be the first ideal that the US will have to face in this situation.

I would be seriously surprised if the US could use ground to air missles to destroy a nuke. That would be very surprising.

We need that anti nucular system, but as of right now we do not have it, so we are in danger of being hit. So, as of right now, any nucular weapon launched at us, if it works, will hit its target.

Even with this system that is in the creating stages, and when it is completed, we still have a high risk into being hit because, even with this new techonolgy, it is no guarantee that it will stop it in its path.

 One thing that freaks me out is the fact that Saddam said if the United States attacks him that he will attack the World. My dad said that Iraq will surrender becuase of the heavy bombing that Bush will order. Who knows!? We have to wait it out.

 Did you guys (and guyettes) here the report Bush ordered Saddam and his sons to get out of Iraq in 48 hours or Bush will take military action. :(  

 Yes, I listened to the Bush report. Though he ordered them to get out in 48 hours, he did not say that we would attack in 48 hours if they did not get out. "At a time of our choosing" we will wage war, quoting Bush. Who knows when that could be? It could be two days from now, or it could be two weeks from now. We'll have to wait and see.

 My input on the matter.

a) I believe that Bush has very little of either our nation's or the Iraqi people's welfare in mind. He is capitalizing on the events post-9/11 to make himself look good and be elected to his second term... in other words, to top his father.

b ) Going against the wishes of the UN Security Council technically authorizes the UN to take action... not against Iraq, but against the United States of America. We could legally be thrown out of not only UN discussions, but also out of the United Nations entirely for these actions. This would throw back world political and social progression by about 50 years.

c) If this war were really about weapons control and stopping the Iraqi government from helping terrorists, we would not be invading the entire nation. We would, instead, merely bomb any and all possible weapons manufacturies. However, this is not what we're doing. We are invading the nation of Iraq- killing its civilians with our urban bombings, terrorizing its people, who do not know why this war is going on!

What in these actions makes us any better than the terrorists? The terrorists target America for bombings because they say that we oppress the Middle East. We target Iraq for occupation because we say that their government oppresses their people.

All of this reminds me so much of how Hitler invaded Eastern Europe in the 1930's.

d) I live well within the estimated blast area, should a nuke ever hit Barksdale AFB, where the nation keeps its B-52's and fighter jets... one of the top 3 targets, should a nuclear-weapons enabled nation attempt to stop our military. I would be dead within 30 seconds of impact.
Several of my best friends who graduated last year, including two ex-boyfriends, are currently serving in the military... at least 3 that I know of are in the Middle East with the Army. There is a much higher chance that American soldiers will die in this battle than in the last- the last battle was not fought with large amounts of chemical and biological weapons at the Iraqi's fingertips.
When I graduate High School in 2.5 months, I will have two years of college before entering the Air Force. I am in the Air Force JROTC now. I will enter the Air Force as a captain. Captains get sent into combat. This war will not necessarily be over within two years. Occupation in Iraq will certainly not be over in 2 years.

President George Bush has already sentenced me to spend time in the desert.
...but I will go into the Air Force anyway. Not to oppress the Iraqi people, and not to fight Republicans' wars, but because I believe that if you wish to take a stance in an issue, you must be an active part of that issue.

Right or wrong (and in this case wrong) I will stand up to defend the American people. NOT America- the American people.

How many of you, who say "WAR! WAR!" instead of wishing for peace, will do what I am doing and will do for my country?

Until you have seen yourself in uniform... until you have held an M-16 in your hand and learned to use it... until you have sat in the back of a cargo plane, and watched the air base fade away into the horizon as you and your flight soar through the sky... until you have said the pledge of allegiance and sung the natoinal anthem, not with your hand over your heart, but saluting your flag... until you have stood with a group of your fellow flight leaders around a desk and listened to your aerospace science instructor tell you that he may ship out within 2 weeks notice of his mobilization...

THEN you may speak with vehemence in your heart about the righteousness of war.

 

Quote from: Bloodrath,Mar 18 2003, 12:02 AM[/qoute]

I am just going to quote myself from Terrouge to what I said, cause I don't really feel like typing all that out again. ;)

Also, you have completely not listen to the facts. Over 100 000 people will die per years from bad health care and lack of food, and to that figure you must add in the people he kills. He chops off there heads for small crimes, if they are even crimes.

-I grant you, although the last sentence is not true.

Listen. I and others can tell you what will happen or what the high chances of what will happen, but that is all theory. Okay then. But, you can't ignore the figures and the facts.

-Nope, but that is not what you are stating.

Since around 1991, Saddam has let 1 000 000 people die, of hungry,health ect. That is a fact.

-Hmmm, yes, possible. A full 5%, that would be, of the population. As compared to maybe .5% in the US. You must understand that that is no higher than in neighboring countries.


Saddam has violented EVERY UN resolution are rules or conditions that they sent to him. Everyone. That is a fact.

-Hmm, er, haha, that would be stretching it a lot. A lot. To put it plainly: that is an exaggeration by about 246%.

He has used chemical weapons aganist his-own-people. He has used chemical weapons against Iran in the 80s. That is a fact.

-Iran, I grant you. Also in the civil war. But then may I remind you that the US civil war involved people bloody well shooting the heck out of each other too. I'm not so sure as your are, that he did use chem. weapons against his own people. Too expensive, see?

He has lied and misled UN inspecters and delayed them while they were searching for weapons. That is a fact.

-Yuppers. At this point I would like to note that I in no way agree with or support Saddam. He's extremely brutal. I'm just being objective.

He has told UN inspecters they can not go in certain places, like Palaces for example to search for weapons. That is a fact.

-Perhaps.

Here is a very key fact. in resolution 1441, ALL 15 countires in the security council agreed, signed, ect. to this resolution. That resolution states, like I and Kenny said before, that since November 4th, 2002, the UN had giving Saddam conditions and rules, checkpoints he had to follow. This resoultion is just a summary of all the resolutions since 1991. It states that if Saddam does not comply with the rules and follow them, then force or heavy actions are aloud. All of the 15 countires in the security council agreed to this, even France.

-Yes, but that is just stating the conditions. The vote on whether he is complying, which is the main point, was on a good way to being vetoed, until it was canceled.

So, Saddam time has run out. The US has tried all measures to get Saddam to comply peacefully. He has not complied with the rules. Now the time is up. And, that resolution states when the time is up, the US and allies may take Saddam out with force.

-No, that is exactly the bit that was not pushed. There is at the present moment no UN resolution per se authorizing the US for war, I gather.

Thos are facts that are real. We can debate what happens after this war, or what will happen during the war, or what will happen if this war doesn't happen, but you can't push out the facts that are staring you in the face, but cleary, all antiwarists are.

-"Those", you need an e. Umm, facts don't pop up so hard for me.

Alos, to answer your question Van. The US does have nucular weapons. They are part of a good of nations, including Russia, France, Germany, ect.. that they are aloud to hold nucular weapons, and are only aloud to use them with FULL UN agreement, or in a time of a huge crisis, a lot bigger than the one at hand now.

-"Nuclear" is the right spelling. As well as "allowed". Not aloud or aload.

Iraq on the other hand is not aload to have these weapons because the world has said they are not aload. The world feels that Iraq would use it for the offense, rather thanthe defense. We have seen Saddam use chemical weapons agianst Iran in the 80s and against his won people. Why would he do the same with nucular weapons? Also, Saddam has served jail time in Siberia, for opposing the government and getting into a lot of trouble. He escaped from jail am went back to Iraq. This was some years ago, but thw worls still has this in mind.

The US is the only country to have used nucular weapons in history. That was a time when it was needed, even though many people do not support it. Anyway, the Nations that are aload to hold these weapons are constantly under watch, and the UN keeps track of all these major missles and where they are located in. It is just amazing that you could think that Saddam would be peaceful with these weapons. He would never be issued to have these in his possion. Not in a million years.

-Small probability of them finding a nuke there.
Oh yes: Gad, do you people realize how hard it is to make a decent ICBM, even if it's not depressed-trajectory?

Heh. Dead Eye. You better learn how to spell better, cause that is just sad. "Irakies" is just a horrid spelling. Heh. Sounds like a second grader. No offense, but you better review your atlas or something like that.

-You talk?


*Goes off muttering*
-Same.


Note I don't support this guy or anything. As to the war - toodle pip, I hate conflict in all form. Even pre-emptive stuff. Although, not on RWL I don't. ;)


Bloodrath.... well, nc.

 Calria, I like Bush, and the UN sucks. If you think he's evil, too bad.

 

Quote from: Bloodrath

Listen. A nucular weapon is different. You can't just "shoot it down". We did shoot down a lot of scud missles, but a fair amount did get through into Israel.

-Oh can't you now?

Now, back to the nucular weapons. They are fast, huge and right on target. By "hitting it out of the sky", they would be a huge risk to many countires surrounding the US, and countires even in Europe.

-"nuclear" - Who said, over Europe? Besides, they don't activate at all until collision.

If you try and shoot it down right after it is lanched, you are in massive trouble. The explosion from the surface to air missles and the nucular warhead, would be massive. If it was hit over any country, than those countries would feel radiation and even explosions of debris could cause a lot of trouble. The radition on these pieces falling would cause a ton of trouble.

Now, if were to try and hit it over the Atlantic or Pacific for example, you also face problems. The surface to air missles are number one, out of range basically untill it reaches a certain distance, untill so many miles off shore.

Also, if it was hit out of the air, it would be relatively close to shore. Now, the huge waves and radition caused by this would be massive, and even if there are floods, it would be nothing to the radition in th air and so forth.

This is of corse if it could even make contact with the nucular missle. They are very different than the scuds and they travel at different speeds and different heights. Hitting a missles in the ocean is very unlikely. Very unlikely. Almost impossible, like the US has reported. You also cannot launch a missle of the same size at it because, well hitting its target is extreamly hard, and very unlikely. Not that the US wouldn't try and hit it down, but actually doing this would be something to see.

The only thing you can really do in this situation that would work is fire nucular weapons back to where they came from, and hopefully pray Saddam's missile is a fluke and doesn't work. The result in all this is nucular war and desruction of the world.

So, we must go in and stop Saddam, before it is too late and we can do nothing.

I know this is not the movies. I am not stupid. Listen. Most nukes do not arm themselves untill the reach a certain distance to there target, yes I agree. However, there are nucular warheads that arm themselves while on the ground, and those are the highly dangerous ones right away.

Also, if Saddam fires a nucular weapon that does not arm itself untill it is near to the US, it is still a huge problem. We are building a anti nucular system, but it is not completed yet, or even tested heavily. There is no strength in that we will hit these weapons out of the air, or anything like that.

The point is that the US does not a have a solid solution to destroy nucular weapons onced launched. If it is launched, this will be the first ideal that the US will have to face in this situation.

I would be seriously surprised if the US could use ground to air missles to destroy a nuke. That would be very surprising.

We need that anti nucular system, but as of right now we do not have it, so we are in danger of being hit. So, as of right now, any nucular weapon launched at us, if it works, will hit its target.

Even with this system that is in the creating stages, and when it is completed, we still have a high risk into being hit because, even with this new techonolgy, it is no guarantee that it will stop it in its path.



OK, I will refute all of it in one glorious go. Here's how a nuke works, boys. To start a chain reaction, you need a chunk of uranium over a critical mass, and I won't calculate it now. So basically, once those get together, you pretty much have a nuclear chain reaction within a /very/ short time. So you build a big shell, and you put a chunk of enriched uranium under the critical mass in the front, and the same in the back. And together, they exceed the critical mass. Now then, you can't do all this in the air, it'll just explode. No, on impact, the two collide, form a chunk over the critical mass, and explode. (Okay, oversimplified, but correct.) See, they can't activate anywhere. And if you explode a chunk of uranium, all you will get is a few smithereens of radiating matter - no threat.

Now for the shooting down - it it ridiculously easy to shoot down most missiles, they were able to shoot most unmanned German plane-bombs (V-1) in World War II, for heavens sake, so what's the matter here? Anything Iraq could construct at short notice would be catnip for the newbiest of newbie antiballistic systems.


Some more stuff....

 TSR i consider that spam.  RETTO reset POST COUNT on TSR!

 My opinion is, RIGHT NOW, the only country acting with the little bit of wisdom, is the one that ISN'T afraid to use his power against the rising threat of evil in this world, that's Bush and the U.S.
If Bush does not step in, and destroy this threat before it grows, it may lead to another world war 3.  This is the same evidence that was presented by Germany before Hitler began open warfare on Europe.
Germany was given the chance to rebuild it's military force, because the rest of the wolrd's post ww1 countries were ashamed of what they had done to them in the first war.  The same is happening now, as I have heard influential talk of things like "Oh, the United States are prejudicial to the iraqis people, they are allowed to contain nuclear weapons, but Iraq isn't? how unfair!"
It may not be fair, but it wouldn't be fair if another mad-man was given the chance to become the most powerful nation in the world; that is a danger.  The USA is the closest country to a free republic there is, and Iraq is a complete dictatorship.  In Iraq, An insane man reigns most high, while in the U.S. only under great discretion is one given the power to control their nuclear stockhold, and thereafter it is still challenged and overthrown if they're deemed unworthy to possess it.
I say, invade Iraq, God protect, speed, and bless those soldiers fighting in the name of sanity, good, and freedom.
I'm ashamed that Canada has not yet agreed to declare war upon this country.  The U.S. WILL win this war.
Bush is getting done what Eisenhower was removed for(He wanted to nuke north korea from it's communist center, and just keep going outward, and eliminate a threat before it started)
I believe Bush is acting with great wisdom, and courage to do this.
The European Common Market will deny U.S. support, because they are selfish, and wish to gain control of the world's economy.  China may want to strike on the U.S. and if successful, Russia will destroy China, and the U.S. will still be the world's superpower.  P.M. Blair of GB Will be removed from office if he goes against Britain's cabinet and declares on Iraq, I believe this will happen.
Everything should go well, but prayers are needed,  as always.
"Though man prepares the horse for battle, victory is of the Lord."
God Bless America
I am shamed of Canada.

 Ereptor, before you rave on, please read what I actually wrote - I wrote a lot there, now read it.

Another thing that popped up is this. No Scud missile ever reached Israel during the Gulf War, so don't talk about these things Bloody, when over half of them aren't true.

Come on, people. Don't tell me you didn't read what I wrote.

 "Irakies should die!"

"P.M. Blair of GB Will be removed from office if he goes against Britain's cabinet and declares on Iraq, I believe this will happen."

"I'm ashamed that Canada has not yet agreed to declare war upon this country. The U.S. WILL win this war."

This is why I don't like the war. Because this 'support' is used in favor of it. Just because another country goes against our ideals means you should be ashamed of them? No, that's just wrong.

Anyone else find it ironic that we are going in, under the name of a UN resolution (1440, I believe), without UN support? I do.

~Shy, Myuh!

 Beatles, about 8% of SCUDs reached Israel, but your facts are alot clearer than others.
The U.S. Counter measures were very imputent when deflecting SCUDs, but so many were deployed, they were very effective none the less.

Quote from: TSR

Another thing that popped up is this. No Scud missile ever reached Israel during the Gulf War, so don't talk about these things Bloody, when over half of them aren't true.

Actually, thats where your wrong. A few scud missles did reach Isreal during the gulf war, i think it was only two though and the us tried to keep it concealed. But, these secrets leaked out and eventually to the general public

 Shy, Read the entirety of my topic, I told you why the UN hasn't agreed to declare on Iraq, they are afraid of anti-prejudicial criticism.  Anti-racism is in more effect unfair than fair, in current day statistics.  People are so afraid of being charged/accused of being prejudice or racist that they fold under pressure, and do things that are NOT right.  And a multi-national organization like the United Nations is just like that.
U.S. Isn't afraid to make a stand and be an unclaimed hero in PREVENTING a world war.
Don't expect to ask questions you can't answer, or you'll get an answer you don't like.
Good day, Shy.

 You know, I think that a war would be a deeper topic on people's minds than what others think of them... maybe I give these countries too much credit with that, though.

Seeing as how I' have debated this in four different forums, and numerous times at school, I shall merely direct you to the RFF post about it.

Just get one thing straight. I go with Don Bruce III's words: "I'm not a dove or a hawk, I'm an effing Penguin."

Have a Nice Day.

~Shy, Myuh!

 Reply here.
I don't care if you won arguments on other forums, you're in my arena now.  You're too hastey.

 Too hasty? Your arena? Tchah... The post I delegated for you was not even one of my own. I intended it to be one for those who wish to know valid opinions.

Forgive me for my lack of enthusiasm on this topic, it is worn out. Besides, I believe I stated my views, backed them up with reasons, and am patiently waiting for a readable response.

As for a side note, I would like to point out that I will never participate in serious Bush-bashing. That's a pitiful, weak way out. He's a man that has a lot of major decisions to make, and I'll respect him for that.

You gotta admit that his grasp fo the English language leaves something to be desired, though...

And in the words of my French teacher, "Freedom Fries? What are we, 12?"

No offense to anyone of said age or lower... but that is something you'd expect from someone that young.

~Shy, Myuh!

EDIT: I'd also like to note that I never said that I won any arguments. Hard to when no one is against your side.

 TSR YOU ARE NOT FING WRITING.  YOU ARE QUOTING.  and long lines of a post that we have allready read.   and you inlcude a 2 word ending to it.  that is spamming....shesh *bangs head against wall* newbies?

 Discussing topics and listening to others seems to be a happenstance of which this thread is devoid.

I respectfully withdraw myself from this conversation and/or topic, leaving behind only my ideas. It's this type of one-sidedness that hurts me most. When will you learn to bleed for your countries?

Please, don't mention this topic at me in any of the other threads on the forums. I'm liable to quit the forums at the moment... your bigotted statements and angriness in the face of more angriness leaves me dismayed, disgusted, and frightened for the future.

 I would personally prefer it if you stayed, Cal. You offer a side to the conflict that cannot be matched by any other. I apologize for not recognizing it in my last post, but I am proud of you for serving our country.

Kudos to you. When I come of age, I can only hope to look to you as an example.

~Shy, Myuh!

 Thanks, Shy.

This type of discussion just gets me too worked up... years and years on the Model UN and Public Speech & Debate teams at my school have gotten me into the habit of arguing, and when people don't debate properly, I get frustrated. I had to go and backspace through a very long post I almost posted because it was full of swear words. *sigh* lol Sarah's rearing her ugly head tonite, and so I'm going to stick to topics that encourage me to be Calria, instead. *chuckle* Although you have to admit I am a bit of a rarity- a liberal pacifist female democrat jumping into the military lol

Quote from: EreptorTSR YOU ARE NOT FING WRITING.  YOU ARE QUOTING.  and long lines of a post that we have allready read.   and you inlcude a 2 word ending to it.  that is spamming....shesh *bangs head against wall* newbies?

Ereptor, again you prove that you are a newbie. Call me a newbie, would you? First then, go ahead and /read/ what is written inside those quotes.  peppered it with my comments. Lol.

 Ok.  TSR you are a newbie.  Happy.  sigh........i give up.  You are spamming but you don't realize it.  Not much i can do.  

 LOL. What a thickhead. You're the newbie, because you don't spell, you don't use punctuation, you flagrantly laugh at grammar, and you don't even bother to read all that I wrote. I hope everbody is not that thick - ergo you have read my comments?

 Beatles, how are you so sure you are correct in some of the comments you did against me? Hm? Just something interesting. The UN has stated that Saddam has by headed people, and he does have a rape chamber. I will try and find the source but that is correct.

Also, how would you know if nukes can be shot out of the air so easily? Have the States or anyone else had nukes fired at them? Well I don't think so, and nukes are different then scuds.

Also, like people have stated, scuds did get through into Israel. I am not sure how many, but yes the did get through.

Also, Saddam did set chemical weapons against his own people. In the late 1980s, Saddam set chemical weapons on the Kurds, which are part of the Iraqi people, and killed thousands of them, and also hurting thousands more. That did happen, and every year the people remember the horrid moment. Actually, the just had the day 2 or so days ago, remembering the time Saddam hit them. So, he did use chemcial weapons against his own people.

QuoteSaddam has violented EVERY UN resolution are rules or conditions that they sent to him. Everyone. That is a fact.

-Hmm, er, haha, that would be stretching it a lot. A lot. To put it plainly: that is an exaggeration by about 246%.

No its not. Since 1991, Iraq has been giving conditions it must follow. All of the conditions pertaining too Weapons of Mass Descruction were not met by Saddam. That has been clearly stated in the UN and the US. Saddam was sent about 17 resolutions since 1991. He has met none of there demands. So when I said every resolution, that is correct, because the UN has stated he has met none of them.

 I think it's interesting to note that, by a string of resolutions, we have the allowance of the UN...

Reso. 678: Authorizes UN Member States "To use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 [regarding the invasion of Kuwait] and all subsequent relevant resolutions..."

Reso. 687: [one of the resolutions ending the gulf war, I believe, which was the invasion of Kuwait] Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless ... of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related susbsystems and components and all resarch, development, support and manufacturing facilities"

So, by those two (I believe the president mentioned them), we are authorized to go in and disarm Iraq, pretty much.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

 TSR and whomever else happened to be talking about "nucluer weapons" or however you guys are spelling it.  You're all spelling it wrong, it's nuclear weapons with an "e" not a "u."

 Gah! I spelled it right, Bloodrath didn't. Would everyone please quit calling us newbies?

 I'm not calling you a newbie I'm just stating that in one of your posts you happened to spell it wrong as did a lot of others, but I didn't feel like scrolling back through and reading all those messages again to find out who did it.

 I support the war with Iraq. However, what will happen after he is beaten? How long will we spend rebuilding the country and how much money will it take? Also, it seems the world will hate us for it. Finally, why does everyone hate newbies? Everyone was one at one time or another...

Quote from: ScarwakeI on the other hand do not support this war with Iraq.  Sure they've managed to build weapons, but we still have more than what they do and they're no threat to us.  If they were to have attacked us, that would be different, then I would support the war.
I feel that this war is going to be one that could possibly lead to many others in the future.  I'm an American, but I'm able to see that America has put a lot of countries around the world under America's juristiction, which I find makes it hard to run anything the way it should be ran in the eyes of the religion, and in the eyes of the government of these countries that are basically under the the control of the United States of America.

hello, IF WE WAIT INNOCENT AMERICANS WILL BE KILLED.  We must be pre-emptive, not retaliation

Quote from: calriaMy input on the matter.

a) I believe that Bush has very little of either our nation's or the Iraqi people's welfare in mind. He is capitalizing on the events post-9/11 to make himself look good and be elected to his second term... in other words, to top his father.

b ) Going against the wishes of the UN Security Council technically authorizes the UN to take action... not against Iraq, but against the United States of America. We could legally be thrown out of not only UN discussions, but also out of the United Nations entirely for these actions. This would throw back world political and social progression by about 50 years.

c) If this war were really about weapons control and stopping the Iraqi government from helping terrorists, we would not be invading the entire nation. We would, instead, merely bomb any and all possible weapons manufacturies. However, this is not what we're doing. We are invading the nation of Iraq- killing its civilians with our urban bombings, terrorizing its people, who do not know why this war is going on!

What in these actions makes us any better than the terrorists? The terrorists target America for bombings because they say that we oppress the Middle East. We target Iraq for occupation because we say that their government oppresses their people.

All of this reminds me so much of how Hitler invaded Eastern Europe in the 1930's.

d) I live well within the estimated blast area, should a nuke ever hit Barksdale AFB, where the nation keeps its B-52's and fighter jets... one of the top 3 targets, should a nuclear-weapons enabled nation attempt to stop our military. I would be dead within 30 seconds of impact.
Several of my best friends who graduated last year, including two ex-boyfriends, are currently serving in the military... at least 3 that I know of are in the Middle East with the Army. There is a much higher chance that American soldiers will die in this battle than in the last- the last battle was not fought with large amounts of chemical and biological weapons at the Iraqi's fingertips.
When I graduate High School in 2.5 months, I will have two years of college before entering the Air Force. I am in the Air Force JROTC now. I will enter the Air Force as a captain. Captains get sent into combat. This war will not necessarily be over within two years. Occupation in Iraq will certainly not be over in 2 years.

President George Bush has already sentenced me to spend time in the desert.
...but I will go into the Air Force anyway. Not to oppress the Iraqi people, and not to fight Republicans' wars, but because I believe that if you wish to take a stance in an issue, you must be an active part of that issue.

Right or wrong (and in this case wrong) I will stand up to defend the American people. NOT America- the American people.

How many of you, who say "WAR! WAR!" instead of wishing for peace, will do what I am doing and will do for my country?

Until you have seen yourself in uniform... until you have held an M-16 in your hand and learned to use it... until you have sat in the back of a cargo plane, and watched the air base fade away into the horizon as you and your flight soar through the sky... until you have said the pledge of allegiance and sung the natoinal anthem, not with your hand over your heart, but saluting your flag... until you have stood with a group of your fellow flight leaders around a desk and listened to your aerospace science instructor tell you that he may ship out within 2 weeks notice of his mobilization...

THEN you may speak with vehemence in your heart about the righteousness of war.

My My, what a democrat. Sorry, but lets discuss......


a) I believe that Bush has very little of either our nation's or the Iraqi people's welfare in mind. He is capitalizing on the events post-9/11 to make himself look good and be elected to his second term... in other words, to top his father.

He isnt capitalizing.....do u remember the speech he gae when he said he would hunt down ALL TERRORISTS? And now he tries and u criticize him.


b ) Going against the wishes of the UN Security Council technically authorizes the UN to take action... not against Iraq, but against the United States of America. We could legally be thrown out of not only UN discussions, but also out of the United Nations entirely for these actions. This would throw back world political and social progression by about 50 years


Technically, they can't. By issue 1441, It allows the U.S. to use force against Iraq. We also cant be thrown out.....'Nuff said.

c) If this war were really about weapons control and stopping the Iraqi government from helping terrorists, we would not be invading the entire nation. We would, instead, merely bomb any and all possible weapons manufacturies. However, this is not what we're doing. We are invading the nation of Iraq- killing its civilians with our urban bombings, terrorizing its people, who do not know why this war is going on!

Ok....I have no idea what u r talking about....the better strategy is to go in there.....look, if we go in there, we get the top government once we win. If w just bomb weapons, then Saddam gets away untouched, no?
For another thing, we aren't bombing settlements.....we also told them we were going to do this...thats why the speech was given.....and they do know. We aren't terrorizing either....this was totally warped....



All of this reminds me so much of how Hitler invaded Eastern Europe in the 1930's.

Erm.....now thats crazy....Hitler strategically conquered the whole of Europe, almost.....and we're going against 1 country. We also are going to A. Occupy.
B. give them new government. C. Leave.... Once again ur view of comparing Hitler to Bush is INSANE.

the last battle was not fought with large amounts of chemical and biological weapons at the Iraqi's fingertips.

You just double-crossed yourself..... go up to point 1. If Bush is capitalizing, as u so mistakingly say, then he would be lying.....if they DO HAVE WEAPONS LIKE U SAID THEN WE ARE JUSTIFIED.


Right or wrong (and in this case wrong) I will stand up to defend the American people. NOT America- the American people.

Ur entitled to believe its wrong, however, America IS the American people.


How many of you, who say "WAR! WAR!" instead of wishing for peace, will do what I am doing and will do for my country?


Most ppl here aren't old enough to join the JROTC......u should know that......


Thanks, you've been great.....And sorry for the double post

 Yep. That's a person who acts like a democratic liberal when any wars come up. Sad. :D  :D  :D  

 Well in my opinion...  NUKE THEM Thank You.. O yea thats right slitfang why does everyone hate newbs :blink:  

 I didn't read all the posts, but here is my say:

Saddam has these weapons and has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. He poses threats to any countries in range of the Al Samoud 2 missile. He has personal vendettas with the U.N. and the U.S. He must be stopped. His military is full of cowards, they will drop their weapons, except his elite Republican Guard. 50 to 60 thousand will fight, and poorly at that. They have no tactics. Hussien poses a threat, and when their is a threat, you eliminate that threat. Stop the threat, end his reign, douse the fire, douse the flame. He will die fighting in cowardice.

My take in short, I left a lot out.

 Rough Raiders no longer deserves an opinion on this topic. He obviously is a git and is now BELOW every newb here. You newbs may claim him at will. He must not understand the whole situation AT ALL, nor is he bright. After he reads this, I hope his brain cell dies so he can't respond and keep filling the boards with stupid.

Anywho, I think Deathclaw is right...(I don't feel like writing super long stuff anymore...)

 Nuking would kill allies and innocent civilians. Too violent, Rough Raiders. We'd kill our forces in and around Iraq, and you are obviously a stupid 8 year old thinking nuking them will kill only the enemy. You do not fully, yet partly, understand this situation, nor any other world matter.

 Sending a nuclear attack on Iraq is the dumbest thing you have ever said. You should be spat on for your willingness to slaughter innocents.

And I must really say that the comments of "What a Democrat..." and such are quite annoying. I, personally, am considered a Democrat, even though their reply to the Sate of the Union was as pitiful as the speech itself. Both sides should stop their little bickering and focus on the issues.

~Shy, Myuh!

 Why do we bother? Iraq's "missles" only go like 23 miles! YA! They can reach Afganistan! And then you got North Korea with their missle's going like 93 miles. The U.S. is only like another 10000 miles. So, we really have nothing to fear, but fear itself.(President Someone) lol. But the sooner we get this done, the better so us 13 year olds don't gotta get killed when were 18 fighting a war.  

 You're thinking of North Korea's possible nuclear missiles. They have intelligence reports that NK has and has sold ICBM's (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) to terrorist organizations. These missiles can hit our west coast if launched from any island in the Pacific or simply the eastern coast of Russia...Not nuclear, but they're missiles none-the-less, and if you hit say, Los Angeles with one, we're talking tens to hundreds of thousands of deaths...(That is if they make a launching facility without us knowing, etc...)

 The Al Samoud 2's go 123 miles, over their set limit, and they can reach bordering countries. LISTEN TO THE NEWS! You aren't 13, don't act like it.

 The United States is making a tactful decision in deciding to declare diplomacy dead unless Iraq fully cooperates by the end of his forty-eight hour ultimatum to the Iraqi dictator. Hussien has weapons of mass destruction, France helped build a nuclear reactor for what Saddam called "educational purposes", yet the reactor was too big for study purposes. France, in exchange, recieved oil and money. This problem should've been taken care of much sooner. Hussien won't listen to acts of diplomacy, only war. He boisters his defences to no avail. His military is full of cowards ready to surrender at the first signs of a fight. Saddam wishes to go out with a BANG (Razorclaw, see that???), and will take some of his own citizens with him. Urban fighting is unavoidable, but not many citizens will bare arms to defend their evil dictator. Not any, in fact, in my opinion. My greatest fear is chemical and biological warfare. He has means of deploying this, but not very many... in all, we shall victor. Three days of bombing, three days fighting, I would guess. I'll post more later, I guess.

 NO war is a good war.
I won't say that I don't think some people should be stopped, or that any good can come from wars, but really, when your teaches said 'violence is not the answer' what do you think they ment? US sure has a lot of double-standards.
We all know(or I /hope/ know) that NK and Iraq have missles. I'd figure that NK will strike us, no matter what, right now Saddam isn't the biggest problem.
When we bombed Afaganastan and freed it's people, how many of you /knew/ that Afaganistan was /severly/ repressive, that it /was/ rubble already and that this had been going on /for quite some time/. The Iraqi thing is not about it's people, Bush, or the puppeter behind Bush, who ever is really in power, are just trying to justify going after Saddam in a relentless manner.
Saddam is cruel, but he's no madman, and he's not an idiot or a coward. He's not afraid to fight for what he wants, and he knows what he's doing. The US might win the land, we might kill Saddam, but we won't win the war.
NK is gonna hurt us, real bad if we don't do something. Terrorists /will/ attack. People, US citizens, will die.

And to claify, I wouldn't mind planeing the white house, throwing riot bombs at the pentigon or starting a sit-in a big company. I don't believe anyone in those places are 'innocent'. The one difrence between me and the terrorists; I might, they will. I want change, they want death. And they don't care who, as long as the mutt-blood of the Americas is in their veins.

But..any death is just as bad as a million deaths. I don't think, that anyone who died in a war, in a terror attack, or from testing of substances on them, or even 'ethnic cleansing' would want this war. Maybe revenge..but ah...

I have even contradicted myself...all I know is that a while ago I stopped pleging my allgence to this nation's goverment long ago. I don't think I can stand in it's honor anymore either. What that flag is turning to stand for is makeing me sick.
Take nothing from this rant...but that. Im a walking contradiction. The only thing I can say is true, forever, is that what my goverment is thinking about doing is makeing me sick. Scratch that..what my goverment //is// doing is makeing me sick.

And everyday Bush makes the 6 simple words harder to look to. "At Least We Didn't Get Tipper"


and before you flame me..or whatever you claim to be doing, I hope your heatedly typeing with your own opinons, formed by hours/weeks/months/years of learning and seeing with the 'patriot' goggles clear from your head....mine change from now and then, but rarely, but do your best to respect other's views, you'll find it get's you farther than haveing the sub-woofer hooked up to you.
~from the gallie you probably didn't know was a gallie with 'Lick me' in bold on her sig~

 In a perfect world any death is bad.  in an imperfect world we have to go with the greater good.  We value our way of life because we are not under a tyrants control.  Other humans should have the same rights we have.  The iraqi people might get that chance.  Saddam is a man that is evil and has taken advantage of a realigion and a people with a dictorship.  A dictatorship that must not be allowed to prevale.  To do this we must do it by force.  Voilence used in everyday life with everyday people is one thing.  But a dictor that has invaded countries in the past and has used nerve gas on his own people is someone that needs to go.  He is one track minded.  Bush gave him 48 hours to leave.  Does Bush or anyone with any knowledge of this situation think that Saddam would leave?  No of course not.  This guy cannot be dealt with by diplomacy.  He must be taken out.  This is in our best and the worlds best interest.  He has attacked before and he will not back down now.

 Heh... other than the almost-terrorism, I'll refute one point... because I'm too lazy to do more. I have two papers to type, tonight, still.

Violence does solve things. In fact, it solves almost anything. Unfortunately, not always in a civil and umane manner, but the conflict is usually solved.

~Shy, Myuh!

 Here we go, Holby getting all serious. *Gasp* No, that wasn't supposed to be funny.
I have nothing to offer to this discussion, but would just like to mention several things...

I have little knowledge on this subject. It feaures big in the news, but I don't follow it as strongly as everyone here seems to. Coverage, I guess would be much stronger in the USA. I felt it important for some reason to note my lack of information.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on this topic. Those that post who are misinformed should be corrected without anger on anyone's behalf.

Replies should be made without ignoring information presented by others.
Accusations of spam (Hmm, wonder who I'm talking about here, Ereptor?) don't help anybody. If you've got a problem, PM an admin.

My opinion on the coming war in Iraq? I can't give one, simply because of how little I know about the situation. The Australian Prime Minister has supported Bush, but there are arguments all over Australia for and against the war. With so much information presented here, and in the media, it's very misleading.
I've decided just to leave it at that for the time being.

 I must dryly remark that that was by far, by far, the wisest comment so far in this topic. Go Holby!

 Personally, I dont know about the rest of you guys. But I live near Turkey Point in Florida and it is a possible target with the war that is going on. If it is struck, I or anyone else could get sick with the radiation and the wind. I personally and mostly anyone in my school that cares is worried but not that worried. Does anyone else live near possible targets for Sadam or bin Laden? :(  

 Seventeen Iraqis surrendered to American troops on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border on Wednesday.

Looks like the front lines are not to eager to fight.  But i forsee a bloody battle that will happen once we get deeper into iraq.  

ok holby point taken.  but you are making yourself look just as bad.  why couldn't you have pm me with that message instead of the way you did it.  your choice.

 I live in rochester NY and we are one of there main targets

 

Quote from: Ereptorok holby point taken.  but you are making yourself look just as bad.  why couldn't you have pm me with that message instead of the way you did it.  your choice.

Why couldn't /you/ have just PMed about it, instead of the way you did it? Your choice.

 U.S. Marine Chopper Down in Kuwait; First Coalition Casualties Reported

Thursday, March 20, 2003

WASHINGTON ? A U.S. Marine helicopter carrying 12 British and 4 U.S. soldiers crashed in Kuwait, killing everyone on board, the Pentagon said.

This is sad.  But no one said war was going to be easy.

 To Jestah: I'm so infuriated by your incredibly STUPID post [yes, I know, but it was] that i'm going to go pound on a wall a bit, as it was so bad it doesnt deserve a response....LEAVE THE US NOW

 8,000 surrendered. Southern oil fields captured.

The U.S. has confirmed reports of citizens of Iraq seeing Hussien being carried out on a gurney (sp).

In response to anyone living near possible targets, I'm an hour from Houston, a possible target.

 Tell me John, why exactly is it stupid?

~Shy, Myuh!

 *bumps*

After a year in Iraq, do you think it was worth the lives we spent?

*ponders* I haven't fully made up my mind....

 Pros:  
-A country liberated from a dictator's rule
-A step in the right direction towards prodding terrorists

Cons:
-Loss of life
-Cost the US quite a bit of cash that coulda been spent elsewhere..


I donno..  I mean, it's great that the evil dicator is gone and that people arnt being massacred in masse for no real reason,
then again, there are many countries still like that.. does that mean the US needs to step in there too?  
you cant please everyone..  

 The US and Britain should TAKE OVER THE WORLD! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! j/k!!! Methinks war was better for country.

 You think too much

I disagree largely with this war in Iraq...my reasons would be far too long to explain and I do not feel like typing right now.

 I think too much? After that statement? *shakes head sadly*

 There was an article on our paper about someone refusing to go back to war with Iraq. Click here for details

Quote from: ShytalonTell me John, why exactly is it stupid?

~Shy, Myuh!

Jestahs post was stupid because: They live in America. If they want to hate America, go and become a socialist-in-Spain, don't stay in this great country and go "the flag makes me sick"
Seriously, the anti-americans SHOULDN'T BE IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are just lucky they weren;t in Iraq, where they would have been tortured/raped/killed

More Pros: Could have helped Libya to give over their weapons.
                    Saddam captured
                  Humanitarian Aid going in

 so people who consider the land america exists in as home just as much as you do should be kicked out because they disagree with you?  You sir are being hypocritical, isn't america always talking about democracy (which is completely seperate from the socialism vs capitalism equation) and if you beleive in democracy don't you have to let everyone beleive what they wish to beleive and voice their beleifs, the moment you say things like they should leave because they disagree, is the moment you are being a fascist.

 If not a fascist, at least very contrary to what the founding fathers said. When you say things like that, John, it makes me think you are a stupid bible-thumping redneck. I would suggest you refrain from such stupid comments in the future if you wish to be viewed as intelligent.

 Shesh what is the point of bringing up old posts like this anyway?  *confused*

 I dunno.. ask whoever did it.

 The point of bringing up this topic was curiosity on my part to see where everyone stood now that the war in Iraq is in its last stages. Had I known that people were going to be rude I would have refrained.  

 Hmm interesting. to bad people can't be nice.  Ya know it may take the same amount of effort but being nice usually pays off in the long run.  btw i like your siggy.  lol

  ;)  Thanks. It's good to see you.

 *thinks people are wierd*

 I just have to add one more thing to what everyone else has said. First off, I'm a Republican, and, yes, I did support this war, however, I disagree with what is going on right now in Iraq. Bush is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Democracy in a Muslim country will not work. The religion and democracy do not work well together at all. I understand that we are trying to give Iraqi people more freedom, but there are a few problems. First of all, this might seem radical to you, but some Iraqi people don't want any more freedom. These people, orthodox followers of the Islamic faith, feel it is against their religion. Also, what happens if the Iraqi people elect someone whom we don't support? Will we take him out of power too? How will this make the Iraqis feel about us? I think we have to find a different solution.

 I wish Gore had been elected, so we could have seen what he did and then compare it with Bush. I hate the media, and all those stupid former bush cabinet members.

 Gore would still be apologizing to Bin Laden about those towers being in his way. j/k LOL. Seriously though, people would be just as tired of GOre by now. And HIS stupid ex-cabinet members. Um.. Orcrist.. you might want to rethink what you said... not exactly the brightest of comments.

[edit sorry for the mild flame if you saw this before the edit Orcrist.. its just comments like that make my blood boil]

 Gen. Volkov, I should have been more clear in my post: I was trying to state the only problem I could find with Iraqi War. You may have misunderstood, I am a full supporter of the war still.

Juska, I believe that Gore would have been not nearly as successful as Bush was as President. Gore would have been less decisive on this topic, and, if Gore had been elected, maybe today Saddam would still be torturing people just for fun.

 OH... I see. Sorry. I mean that problem may or may not exist.. but I get your point now.

Quote from: OrcristI just have to add one more thing to what everyone else has said. First off, I'm a Republican, and, yes, I did support this war, however, I disagree with what is going on right now in Iraq. Bush is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Democracy in a Muslim country will not work. The religion and democracy do not work well together at all. I understand that we are trying to give Iraqi people more freedom, but there are a few problems. First of all, this might seem radical to you, but some Iraqi people don't want any more freedom. These people, orthodox followers of the Islamic faith, feel it is against their religion. Also, what happens if the Iraqi people elect someone whom we don't support? Will we take him out of power too? How will this make the Iraqis feel about us? I think we have to find a different solution.

Right.  So you're saying that we should have gone to war in Iraq, but not attempted to rebuild its government?  What should we have tried to do, then?

QuoteBush is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. This is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Democracy in a Muslim country will not work.

Read the Bible.  Read of God crowning kings.  Read of God permitting slavery.  Read of Jesus telling His followers to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and obey all authority.  Read Luke 19:11-27.  The Bible never comes up with an idea anything like democracy, and never supports such a thing.  And when you're done, read the Koran before you condemn the religion.

Anyway, even if some of the people there oppose democracy, that does not mean that we should ensure that none of them have any chance at having rights.

 Give to caesar/....... meant pay taxes/////

 And thus bow down and accept the corrupt manner in which taxes were collected in the time.  Jesus was essentially saying that nothing should be done about the way that most tax collectors would collect more taxes than the person in question owed, and kept what was left over for themselves.

 it not say that.....It said pay the allotted amount, not give extra, you are completely misintrepreting this

Quote from: KilkenneI would hope that you were just outside the blast radius so you can get leukemia or some other radiation orientated disease and DIE.

Shut your mouth about Leukemia, my cousin has it and he's not good at the moment, don't you ever wish that upon another person again! :angry:  

 Blackeyes, that was last year... Kilk doesn't even post here anymore. And I doubt he was serious.

*Is going over the various posts Tyrannus made.* Wow. A) I was a total A-hole as Tyrannus. LOL. B) I know quite a bit more now than I did then. C) This is mildly funny to read nowadays, in light of it being 2007 and we are still dealing with essentially the same stuff in Iraq.
Mostly referring to the "with the war winding down" comment.


-Volkov